# What is White Supremacy?



## Mortimer

What is White Supremacy?

I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".

That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


----------



## BuckToothMoron

White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.


----------



## IM2

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.


----------



## Jitss617

It’s how every race feels .. blacks say they are Supreme, Latins, etc.. it’s natural to national


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?...




It's actually quite a few things, especially subconscious things. Epitomizers. Like, a certain thread in the USM Sports forum right now, feat. former NFL player (and thief) Clinton Portis as the star of the show.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

IM2 said:


> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.



Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......


----------



## Toro

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.



Asians are more intelligent than whites.

So bow to your Chinese master!


----------



## IM2

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
Click to expand...

My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?


----------



## IM2

BuckToothMoron said:


> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.


And that's the problem. White supremacists wear suits and ties now, have college degrees and are well groomed.


----------



## jwoodie

The substantive definition of white supremacy would be the dominant impact of European descendants on most of current civilization.


----------



## Likkmee

FreeDumb !


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?


In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
Click to expand...


Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.

Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.

SMGDH.

*A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *

In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.



Source:
White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents


----------



## TheParser

The matter of ethnicity and intelligence simply cannot  be discussed in public, not even in university classrooms.

This is a topic that is discussed only in private.

In fact, if it were ever "proved" that the Martians, for example, are more intelligent than the inhabitants of Earth, that information would have to be suppressed, lest it give human beings an inferiority complex.

As I understand it, most websites will not even allow a discussion of this topic.  Received wisdom holds that both Martians and human beings are equally intelligent. Any deviation from this position constitutes "hate speech" and is prohibited.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
Click to expand...

Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.


----------



## miketx

IM2 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
Click to expand...

We only wish you didn't exist.


----------



## IM2

TheParser said:


> The matter of ethnicity and intelligence simply cannot  be discussed in public, not even in university classrooms.
> 
> This is a topic that is discussed only in private.
> 
> In fact, if it were ever "proved" that the Martians, for example, are more intelligent than the inhabitants of Earth, that information would have to be suppressed, lest it give human beings an inferiority complex.
> 
> As I understand it, most websites will not even allow a discussion of this topic.  Received wisdom holds that both Martians and human beings are equally intelligent. Any deviation from this position constitutes "hate speech" and is prohibited.


That's because there is no relationship between ethnicity and intelligence. Forums like this are evidence of this reality.


----------



## harmonica

the Asians, in general --are the most beautiful and smart 
..I'm white-and not racist--and I approve of this message


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
Click to expand...

That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.


----------



## harmonica

IM2 said:


> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> The matter of ethnicity and intelligence simply cannot  be discussed in public, not even in university classrooms.
> 
> This is a topic that is discussed only in private.
> 
> In fact, if it were ever "proved" that the Martians, for example, are more intelligent than the inhabitants of Earth, that information would have to be suppressed, lest it give human beings an inferiority complex.
> 
> As I understand it, most websites will not even allow a discussion of this topic.  Received wisdom holds that both Martians and human beings are equally intelligent. Any deviation from this position constitutes "hate speech" and is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there is no relationship between ethnicity and intelligence. Forums like this are evidence of this reality.
Click to expand...

the Asians are smarter than blacks


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
Click to expand...

And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?

I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.

And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
Click to expand...


Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.

Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
Click to expand...


And for the 300th time or so, you have posted fact less bullshit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

BuckToothMoron said:


> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.



It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
Click to expand...

Here is yet another example of liberal mind set thinking it is in control of everyone.
  As I've Posted many times, liberals always try to put issues into a box of what they call a "credible source".  And invariably, these so,-called credible sources of theirs are Liberal universities, ,Liberal think tanks, Liberal media.  That's what "counts" to them.  What a surprise!

Well, I have seen some studies on this posted in conservative media.  Wanna see them ?

Actually, this all is.just a deflection from just common knowledge that certainly doesn't need any source or study, liberal or conservative.  Everyone knows that white women beneficiaries of AA, are a tiny fraction of all the white daughters & wives of victimized white men.

In fact, even these white beneficiaries themselves are victims, by virtue of the white men victims who are part of their households (husbands, fathers, sons, brothers,).  They are simultaneously both beneficiaries, and victims.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
Click to expand...


*Definition of fact: *1 a : something that has actual existence ·space exploration is now a fact b : an actual occurrence ·prove the fact of damage  2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality ·These are the hard facts of the case. 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality ·a question of fact hinges on evidence 4 : a thing done: such as a : crime ·accessory after the fact b archaic : action c obsolete : feat 

*Fact-*

*Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women*

Affirmative action programs make a difference. A government study showed that women made greater gains in employment at companies doing business with the federal government, and therefore subject to federal affirmative action requirements, than at other companies: female employment rose 15.2% at federal contractors, and only 2.2% elsewhere. The same study showed that federal contractors employed women at higher levels and in better paying jobs than other firms.(40)

Many individual companies that have adopted affirmative action plans have demonstrated the impact on women. For example, after IBM set up its affirmative action program, its number of female officials and managers more than tripled in less than ten years.(41) Corporate commitment to women and minorities enabled Corning to double its number of female and black employees and increase the proportion of women managers to 29%.(42) Motorola has been rewarded with an increased representation of women and people of color in upper-level management. The company had two women and six persons of color as vice president in 1989, but boasts 33 female and 40 minority vice presidents today.(43)

Affirmative action requirements have changed entire industries. In 1978, the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) reviewed the employment practices of the five largest banks in Cleveland. Three years later, the percentage of women officials and managers at these institutions had risen more than 20%. When OFCCP first looked at the coal mining industry in 1973, there were no women coal miners. By 1980, 8.7% were women.(44)

Litigation against police and fire departments has resulted in affirmative action plans that have produced dramatic increases in the employment of women (and minorities) in these fields as well.(45) In 1983, for example, women made up 9.4% of the nation’s police, and 1% of firefighters. Sixteen years later, women are 16.9% of police, and 2.8% of firefighters.(46)

Women-owned businesses, which have also benefitted from affirmative action requirements, have increased since 1987 by 103%. Today, there are nearly 9.1 million woman-owned businesses, employing over 27.5 million people.(47)






Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women | NWLC

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

The People Who Benefit Most From Affirmative Action Are The White Women Who Oppose It

STFU.
*
*


----------



## 22lcidw

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
Click to expand...

Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
Click to expand...

You're a white supremacist.


----------



## IM2

22lcidw said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.
Click to expand...


Bullshit.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And for the 300th time or so, you have posted fact less bullshit.
Click to expand...

Oh, so you contend then that all the many millions of white women family of discriminated against white men, don't vastly outnumber white women AA beneficiaries ? Lol

In your case, I could see you ludicrously giving a no answer to that (even when this would be impossible since the beneficiaries are both that AND victims too) .


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
Click to expand...

You're a black supremacist, racist pig.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is yet another example of liberal mind set thinking it is in control of everyone.
> As I've Posted many times, liberals always try to put issues into a box of what they call a "credible source".  And invariably, these so,-called credible sources of theirs are Liberal universities, ,Liberal think tanks, Liberal media.  That's what "counts" to them.  What a surprise!
> 
> Well, I have seen some studies on this posted in conservative media.  Wanna see them ?
> 
> Actually, this all is.just a deflection from just common knowledge that certainly doesn't need any source or study, liberal or conservative.  Everyone knows that white women beneficiaries of AA, are a tiny fraction of all the white daughters & wives of victimized white men.
> 
> In fact, even these white beneficiaries themselves are victims, by virtue of the white men victims who are part of their households (husbands, fathers, sons, brothers,).  They are simultaneously both beneficiaries, and victims.
Click to expand...


The information from white supremacist media is debunked by department of labor statistics. Those are the statistics we are citing that you claim are liberal. White family income has increased because of this and whites are not the victims of anything.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
Click to expand...

There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And for the 300th time or so, you have posted fact less bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, so you contend then that all the many millions of white women family of discriminated against white men, don't vastly outnumber white women AA beneficiaries ? Lol
> 
> In your case, I could see you ludicrously giving a no answer to that (even when this would be impossible since the beneficiaries are both that AND victims too) .
Click to expand...


They don't. White men are not discriminated against. They are 33 percent of the population and hold the majority of the jobs and wealth.


----------



## IM2

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
Click to expand...


I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.

You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah right, like you really need "statistical proof" to ascertain that blacks benefitted from AA at the expense of millions of whites. Lol

Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound ?  Actually, the word shouldn't be " millions", it should be hundreds of millions
  Do you know how many hundreds of millions of whites have lived in America over the past 59 years ? (counting all births and deaths turnover)


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a black supremacist, racist pig.
Click to expand...

Nah. I don't believe in the inherent supremacy of any race.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> 
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.
> 
> You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.
Click to expand...

Imbecile.  Not only was I discriminated against at my graduate school, thereby wrecking my career, but so was another Hispanic besides me, plus 2 Asians, and 7 women, plus all the whites.

Only blacks got AA assistantships . Pure black privilege racism, that the college administrators should have been jailed for.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a black supremacist, racist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah. I don't believe in the inherent supremacy of any race.
Click to expand...

But you support AA, putting blacks supreme over all others, as they did in my graduate school.  Pure malicious racism, and you support it.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah right, like you really need "statistical proof" to ascertain that blacks benefitted from AA at the expense of millions of whites. Lol
> 
> Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound ?  Actually, the word shouldn't be " millions", it should be hundreds of millions
> Do you know how many hundreds of millions of whites have lived in America over the past 59 years ? (counting all births and deaths turnover)
Click to expand...


Since whites have held the majority of jobs over that 59 years, your claim isn't supported by fact.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> 
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.
> 
> You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.  Not only was I discriminated against at my graduate school, thereby wrecking my career, but so was another Hispanic besides me, plus 2 Asians, and 7 women, plus all the whites.
> 
> Only blacks got AA assistantships . Pure black privilege racism, that the college administrators should have been jailed for.
Click to expand...


That's a lie.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb

Behavior is more important than intelligence.
Hard working decent people tend to be more productive and successful regardless of their race.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


White supremacy in it's most benign form is a *belief*, not fact, that the white race is superior to all other races and that being born into the white race means one is a superior indivdual to any other individual not of the white race.

In it's most pernicuous form, it is a system of laws, government policies, practices, social mores, court rulings, etc. which enforce this *belief* resulting in the subjugation of and discrimination against non-whites, specifically in the United States those designated to be of "African descent".  This system of *institutional racism* which *legally *rationalized, justified and allowed crimes to be committed against black people which currently are forbidden and in fact where forbidden to be committed against white people is what allow white racists to plunder the lives and resources however meager initially, of an entire race of people.  This is what they're referring to as "superiority" and denigrating black people for not having been able to prevent.  It is more than telling that these laws that were passed to basically "contain" the black race included some of the first gun control laws in the country.  The white racists were adament that black could not be able to take up arms even in their own defense against the Klan or any other white person meaning them harm to the extent that they were prohibited from owning dogs, who could be used for protection.

This is not superiority, this a brutal dominion enforced by white laws specifically against black people and enforced at the end of gun under the threat of loss of life, loss of freedom and/or a life of hard labor which is little more than a return to slavery.  This is American Apartheid.  And the term "White Priviledge" stems from the obvious benefit of being born into the white race with all of it's societal, and legal benefits that are built in that one inherits by mere membership:







Apartheid - Wikipedia​


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
Click to expand...


If you say so.  Actually, I would not want to rule over you, just send you somewhere to a place you'd be happy to be.  That, at least, makes me intolerant of your incessant racism.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you say so.  Actually, I would not want to rule over you, just send you somewhere to a place you'd be happy to be.  That, at least, makes me intolerant of your incessant racism.
Click to expand...

You're the one claiming America was founded for white people and the 14th amendment is illegal. That's what white supremacists believe. I am not the racist here and if you don't like what e pluribus unum is, you can move somewhere to a place you'd be happy to be.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

harmonica said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> The matter of ethnicity and intelligence simply cannot  be discussed in public, not even in university classrooms.
> 
> This is a topic that is discussed only in private.
> 
> In fact, if it were ever "proved" that the Martians, for example, are more intelligent than the inhabitants of Earth, that information would have to be suppressed, lest it give human beings an inferiority complex.
> 
> As I understand it, most websites will not even allow a discussion of this topic.  Received wisdom holds that both Martians and human beings are equally intelligent. Any deviation from this position constitutes "hate speech" and is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there is no relationship between ethnicity and intelligence. Forums like this are evidence of this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Asians are smarter than blacks
Click to expand...

And the Muppets are smarter than U.S. Message Board member harmonica


----------



## Deplorable Yankee

Toro said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Asians are more intelligent than whites.
> 
> So bow to your Chinese master!
Click to expand...



Like all second and and third worlders  they're smart enough to know that self hating white western leftwingers are idiots and tools

Baizuo's 

Is it just jealousy of white western exceptionalism and excellence that they hate ?


Inferiority complexes ?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Definition of fact: *1 a : something that has actual existence ·space exploration is now a fact b : an actual occurrence ·prove the fact of damage  2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality ·These are the hard facts of the case. 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality ·a question of fact hinges on evidence 4 : a thing done: such as a : crime ·accessory after the fact b archaic : action c obsolete : feat
> 
> *Fact-*
> 
> *Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women*
> 
> Affirmative action programs make a difference. A government study showed that women made greater gains in employment at companies doing business with the federal government, and therefore subject to federal affirmative action requirements, than at other companies: female employment rose 15.2% at federal contractors, and only 2.2% elsewhere. The same study showed that federal contractors employed women at higher levels and in better paying jobs than other firms.(40)
> 
> Many individual companies that have adopted affirmative action plans have demonstrated the impact on women. For example, after IBM set up its affirmative action program, its number of female officials and managers more than tripled in less than ten years.(41) Corporate commitment to women and minorities enabled Corning to double its number of female and black employees and increase the proportion of women managers to 29%.(42) Motorola has been rewarded with an increased representation of women and people of color in upper-level management. The company had two women and six persons of color as vice president in 1989, but boasts 33 female and 40 minority vice presidents today.(43)
> 
> Affirmative action requirements have changed entire industries. In 1978, the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) reviewed the employment practices of the five largest banks in Cleveland. Three years later, the percentage of women officials and managers at these institutions had risen more than 20%. When OFCCP first looked at the coal mining industry in 1973, there were no women coal miners. By 1980, 8.7% were women.(44)
> 
> Litigation against police and fire departments has resulted in affirmative action plans that have produced dramatic increases in the employment of women (and minorities) in these fields as well.(45) In 1983, for example, women made up 9.4% of the nation’s police, and 1% of firefighters. Sixteen years later, women are 16.9% of police, and 2.8% of firefighters.(46)
> 
> Women-owned businesses, which have also benefitted from affirmative action requirements, have increased since 1987 by 103%. Today, there are nearly 9.1 million woman-owned businesses, employing over 27.5 million people.(47)
> 
> View attachment 299706
> 
> Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women | NWLC
> 
> Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost
> 
> The People Who Benefit Most From Affirmative Action Are The White Women Who Oppose It
> 
> STFU.
Click to expand...

Go Big Blue!

Thanks so much for posting this IM2!  I keep forgetting that they all view Affirmative Action as a "black" law in spite of the verbiage of the law being race neutral:

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order mandating government contractors to 
     "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during 
      employment, *without regard *to their *race*, creed, color, or national origin." ( Executive Order 10925)​


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah right, like you really need "statistical proof" to ascertain that blacks benefitted from AA at the expense of millions of whites. Lol
> 
> Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound ?  Actually, the word shouldn't be " millions", it should be hundreds of millions
> Do you know how many hundreds of millions of whites have lived in America over the past 59 years ? (counting all births and deaths turnover)
Click to expand...


Yes. In fact you should produce statistical information to support what has literally been made up bullshit so far.

Mathematically your assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites" have been victims because of blacks benefitting from AA is ludicrous.

This is America, you retard. And based on the history of this country, there would be anarchy in the streets if "hundreds of millions" of whites were victimized to "benefit blacks"

How in the hell can a population of 38 million  blacks benefit at the expense of nearly times as many whites?
U.S. labor statistics prove what you are stating to be a flat out, blatant lie.



protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah right, like you really need "statistical proof" to ascertain that blacks benefitted from AA at the expense of millions of whites. Lol
> 
> Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound ?  Actually, the word shouldn't be " millions", it should be hundreds of millions
> Do you know how many hundreds of millions of whites have lived in America over the past 59 years ? (counting all births and deaths turnover)
Click to expand...


For one who often boasts about his educational background, your logic and common sense is nonexistent.

 You should produce statistical information to support what has literally been made up bullshit so far by you.

Mathematically your assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites" have been victims  because of blacks benefitting from AA is ludicrous.

This is America, you idiot, and based on the history of this country, there would be anarchy in the streets if "hundreds of millions of whites" were victimized to "benefit blacks".

In fact, in 1961, when AA was first passed, Jim Crow was still in existence in the south and nearly 60% of the black population resided in the south during the 1960's. 

 If blacks had benefitted at the expense of whites in ANY way in   that geographical region during that era, there would have been a  million white sheet wearing nuts like you declaring open season on blacks, you damn fool.

Furthermore, since the introduction of AA, the black population at it peak has never exceeded 34 to 38 million, and out of those 34 to 38 million, those who were employable  and of working and college age  totaled  far less than the entire total of that demographic.

How in the hell can "A PART" of a  population of 38 million  blacks benefit at the expense of nearly 3 times as many white people?

That is the DUMBEST  statemen ever made in this forum. Even for you.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a black supremacist, racist pig.
Click to expand...

Hey, someone who was crying and calling the police because his feelings were hurt when a poster here called him a dumbass, should not be calling anyone else names.  

How well do you think that's going to play in your poor pitiful me elder abuse case?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
Click to expand...


Go take your medication. Your off the rails.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is yet another example of liberal mind set thinking it is in control of everyone.
> As I've Posted many times, liberals always try to put issues into a box of what they call a "credible source".  And invariably, these so,-called credible sources of theirs are Liberal universities, ,Liberal think tanks, Liberal media.  That's what "counts" to them.  What a surprise!
> 
> Well, I have seen some studies on this posted in conservative media.  Wanna see them ?
> 
> Actually, this all is.just a deflection from just common knowledge that certainly doesn't need any source or study, liberal or conservative.  Everyone knows that white women beneficiaries of AA, are a tiny fraction of all the white daughters & wives of victimized white men.
> 
> In fact, even these white beneficiaries themselves are victims, by virtue of the white men victims who are part of their households (husbands, fathers, sons, brothers,).  They are simultaneously both beneficiaries, and victims.
Click to expand...


30% of the total population, that holds 70% of managerial positions in the workforce are far from "victims", you dunce.


----------



## harmonica

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah right, like you really need "statistical proof" to ascertain that blacks benefitted from AA at the expense of millions of whites. Lol
> 
> Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound ?  Actually, the word shouldn't be " millions", it should be hundreds of millions
> Do you know how many hundreds of millions of whites have lived in America over the past 59 years ? (counting all births and deaths turnover)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. In fact you should produce statistical information to support what has literally been made up bullshit so far.
> 
> Mathematically your assertion that of "hundreds of millions of whites" have been victims of because of blacks benefitting from AA is ludicrous. This is America, you retard. And based on the history of the country, there would be anarchy in the streets if hundreds of millions of whites were victimized to benefit whites.
> 
> How in the hell can a population of 38 million  blacks benefit at the expense
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah right, like you really need "statistical proof" to ascertain that blacks benefitted from AA at the expense of millions of whites. Lol
> 
> Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound ?  Actually, the word shouldn't be " millions", it should be hundreds of millions
> Do you know how many hundreds of millions of whites have lived in America over the past 59 years ? (counting all births and deaths turnover)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one who often boasts about his educational background, your logic and common sense is nonexistent.
> 
> You should produce statistical information to support what has literally been made up bullshit so far by you.
> 
> Mathematically your assertion that of "hundreds of millions of whites" have been victims  because of blacks benefitting from AA is ludicrous.
> 
> This is America, you idiot, and based on the history of this country, there would be anarchy in the streets if "hundreds of millions of whites" were victimized to "benefit blacks".
> 
> In fact, in 1961, when AA was first passed, Jim Crow was still in existence in the south. If blacks had benefitted at the expense of whites in ANY way in   that geographical region during that era, there would have been a  million white sheet wearing nuts like you declaring open season on blacks, you damn fool.
> 
> Furthermore, since the introduction of AA, the black population at it peak has never exceeded 30 to 38 million, and out of those 30 to 38 million, those of working and college age total  far less than the entire total of that demographic.
> 
> How in the hell can a part of a  population of 38 million  blacks benefit at the expense of nearly 3 times as many white people?
> 
> That is the DUMBEST  statemen ever made in this forum. Even for you.
Click to expand...

THAT is the dumbest statement ever made in this forum --even for you


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Definition of fact: *1 a : something that has actual existence ·space exploration is now a fact b : an actual occurrence ·prove the fact of damage  2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality ·These are the hard facts of the case. 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality ·a question of fact hinges on evidence 4 : a thing done: such as a : crime ·accessory after the fact b archaic : action c obsolete : feat
> 
> *Fact-*
> 
> *Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women*
> 
> Affirmative action programs make a difference. A government study showed that women made greater gains in employment at companies doing business with the federal government, and therefore subject to federal affirmative action requirements, than at other companies: female employment rose 15.2% at federal contractors, and only 2.2% elsewhere. The same study showed that federal contractors employed women at higher levels and in better paying jobs than other firms.(40)
> 
> Many individual companies that have adopted affirmative action plans have demonstrated the impact on women. For example, after IBM set up its affirmative action program, its number of female officials and managers more than tripled in less than ten years.(41) Corporate commitment to women and minorities enabled Corning to double its number of female and black employees and increase the proportion of women managers to 29%.(42) Motorola has been rewarded with an increased representation of women and people of color in upper-level management. The company had two women and six persons of color as vice president in 1989, but boasts 33 female and 40 minority vice presidents today.(43)
> 
> Affirmative action requirements have changed entire industries. In 1978, the Labor Department’s Office of Federal Contract Compliance (OFCCP) reviewed the employment practices of the five largest banks in Cleveland. Three years later, the percentage of women officials and managers at these institutions had risen more than 20%. When OFCCP first looked at the coal mining industry in 1973, there were no women coal miners. By 1980, 8.7% were women.(44)
> 
> Litigation against police and fire departments has resulted in affirmative action plans that have produced dramatic increases in the employment of women (and minorities) in these fields as well.(45) In 1983, for example, women made up 9.4% of the nation’s police, and 1% of firefighters. Sixteen years later, women are 16.9% of police, and 2.8% of firefighters.(46)
> 
> Women-owned businesses, which have also benefitted from affirmative action requirements, have increased since 1987 by 103%. Today, there are nearly 9.1 million woman-owned businesses, employing over 27.5 million people.(47)
> 
> View attachment 299706
> 
> Affirmative Action and What It Means for Women | NWLC
> 
> Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost
> 
> The People Who Benefit Most From Affirmative Action Are The White Women Who Oppose It
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go Big Blue!
> 
> Thanks so much for posting this IM2!  I keep forgetting that they all view Affirmative Action as a "black" law in spite of the verbiage of the law being race neutral:
> 
> In 1961, President John F. Kennedy issued an executive order mandating government contractors to
> "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during
> employment, *without regard *to their *race*, creed, color, or national origin." ( Executive Order 10925)​
Click to expand...

Oh "without regard to their race", huh ?  Gee, isn't that nice.  And that's why the AA questionnaires ask us what race we are, right ?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is yet another example of liberal mind set thinking it is in control of everyone.
> As I've Posted many times, liberals always try to put issues into a box of what they call a "credible source".  And invariably, these so,-called credible sources of theirs are Liberal universities, ,Liberal think tanks, Liberal media.  That's what "counts" to them.  What a surprise!
> 
> Well, I have seen some studies on this posted in conservative media.  Wanna see them ?
> 
> Actually, this all is.just a deflection from just common knowledge that certainly doesn't need any source or study, liberal or conservative.  Everyone knows that white women beneficiaries of AA, are a tiny fraction of all the white daughters & wives of victimized white men.
> 
> In fact, even these white beneficiaries themselves are victims, by virtue of the white men victims who are part of their households (husbands, fathers, sons, brothers,).  They are simultaneously both beneficiaries, and victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30% of the total population, that holds 70% of managerial positions in the workforce are far from "victims", you dunce.
Click to expand...

Do you have any idea what you're talking about ?  What "30%" ?  Who ?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you something and it's a sincere question.  Sometimes companies merge or one will buy out the other.  They have employees who have seniority from both sides and they have to work out how to *fairly *integrate the two sides so that people who have worked and earned their seniority don't lose it due to the company reorganization.

The employees of the company who gets bought out generally are grateful not to lose their seniority but the existing company employees can feel resentful that the level they were trying to obtain now may take a little bit longer because there are more employees in the mix.

I realize this is kind of abstract but it's the only way I could think of to try to point out, that white males dominated the employment market because they had the power to do so, however that doesn't mean that they were entitled to the entire market, they just managed to ensure that everyone else was shut-out.

What affirmative action did was open the market up so that others could compete.  The falsehood that is often proferred is that the jobs lost were lost to "less qualified" non-whites and from everything I've seen and read there is nothing to support this theory other than "well if they were qualified why were they never able to get a job without AA". 

So in one case there is a merger, in the other case it's the company, because there is now a law in place that says they can no longer discriminate, opening up it's opportunities to people it previously would not consider.  

Does this scenario explain any of this any better or create a better understanding of what actually occurred?  And just FYI, the federal government agency which enforces the Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which the Affirmative Action order is based is the Equal Employment *Opportunity *Commission, emphasis on "Opportunity", because that's all that the law provided other than legal redress of it's violation which previously did not exist.  It's entirely up to the individual however to make something of that opportunity, and as we have, seen many have.


----------



## katsteve2012

harmonica said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> 
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah right, like you really need "statistical proof" to ascertain that blacks benefitted from AA at the expense of millions of whites. Lol
> 
> Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound ?  Actually, the word shouldn't be " millions", it should be hundreds of millions
> Do you know how many hundreds of millions of whites have lived in America over the past 59 years ? (counting all births and deaths turnover)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes. In fact you should produce statistical information to support what has literally been made up bullshit so far.
> 
> Mathematically your assertion that of "hundreds of millions of whites" have been victims of because of blacks benefitting from AA is ludicrous. This is America, you retard. And based on the history of the country, there would be anarchy in the streets if hundreds of millions of whites were victimized to benefit whites.
> 
> How in the hell can a population of 38 million  blacks benefit at the expense
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh yeah right, like you really need "statistical proof" to ascertain that blacks benefitted from AA at the expense of millions of whites. Lol
> 
> Do you have any idea how idiotic you sound ?  Actually, the word shouldn't be " millions", it should be hundreds of millions
> Do you know how many hundreds of millions of whites have lived in America over the past 59 years ? (counting all births and deaths turnover)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For one who often boasts about his educational background, your logic and common sense is nonexistent.
> 
> You should produce statistical information to support what has literally been made up bullshit so far by you.
> 
> Mathematically your assertion that of "hundreds of millions of whites" have been victims  because of blacks benefitting from AA is ludicrous.
> 
> This is America, you idiot, and based on the history of this country, there would be anarchy in the streets if "hundreds of millions of whites" were victimized to "benefit blacks".
> 
> In fact, in 1961, when AA was first passed, Jim Crow was still in existence in the south. If blacks had benefitted at the expense of whites in ANY way in   that geographical region during that era, there would have been a  million white sheet wearing nuts like you declaring open season on blacks, you damn fool.
> 
> Furthermore, since the introduction of AA, the black population at it peak has never exceeded 30 to 38 million, and out of those 30 to 38 million, those of working and college age total  far less than the entire total of that demographic.
> 
> How in the hell can a part of a  population of 38 million  blacks benefit at the expense of nearly 3 times as many white people?
> 
> That is the DUMBEST  statemen ever made in this forum. Even for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAT is the dumbest statement ever made in this forum --even for you
Click to expand...


Prove it to be wrong, dipstick.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

22lcidw said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school.
Click to expand...

What was considered a good job back then because we were raised on the belief that you got a "good" job by going to college not just graduating high school.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a black supremacist, racist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, someone who was crying and calling the police because his feelings were hurt when a poster here called him a dumbass, should not be calling anyone else names.
> 
> How well do you think that's going to play in your poor pitiful me elder abuse case?
Click to expand...

A lot better than your grade in the Quiz for Liberals, that you punked out of.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> 
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is yet another example of liberal mind set thinking it is in control of everyone.
> As I've Posted many times, liberals always try to put issues into a box of what they call a "credible source".  And invariably, these so,-called credible sources of theirs are Liberal universities, ,Liberal think tanks, Liberal media.  That's what "counts" to them.  What a surprise!
> 
> Well, I have seen some studies on this posted in conservative media.  Wanna see them ?
> 
> Actually, this all is.just a deflection from just common knowledge that certainly doesn't need any source or study, liberal or conservative.  Everyone knows that white women beneficiaries of AA, are a tiny fraction of all the white daughters & wives of victimized white men.
> 
> In fact, even these white beneficiaries themselves are victims, by virtue of the white men victims who are part of their households (husbands, fathers, sons, brothers,).  They are simultaneously both beneficiaries, and victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 30% of the total population, that holds 70% of managerial positions in the workforce are far from "victims", you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have any idea what you're talking about ?  What "30%" ?  Who ?
Click to expand...


My God. You really are an idiot. White males are about 30% of the population, yet hold 65% of elected positionscsnd nearly 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.


I already told you that your senility is no excuse for being stupid.




https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...all-american-elected-officials-are-white-men/


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a black supremacist, racist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, someone who was crying and calling the police because his feelings were hurt when a poster here called him a dumbass, should not be calling anyone else names.
> 
> How well do you think that's going to play in your poor pitiful me elder abuse case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot better than your grade in the Quiz for Liberals, that you punked out of.
Click to expand...


No sensible adult would waste their time reading some imaginary nonsense from a loon.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> Oh "without regard to their race", huh ? Gee, isn't that nice. And that's why the AA questionnaires ask us what race we are, right ?


I've asked the same question.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a black supremacist, racist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, someone who was crying and calling the police because his feelings were hurt when a poster here called him a dumbass, should not be calling anyone else names.
> 
> How well do you think that's going to play in your poor pitiful me elder abuse case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot better than your grade in the Quiz for Liberals, that you punked out of.
Click to expand...

A zero for a quiz I didn't take huh lol?  

In my world a zero means "success".


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.
> 
> You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.  Not only was I discriminated against at my graduate school, thereby wrecking my career, but so was another Hispanic besides me, plus 2 Asians, and 7 women, plus all the whites.
> 
> Only blacks got AA assistantships . Pure black privilege racism, that the college administrators should have been jailed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most white males in the early 1970's when affirmative action became the law of the land could not get good jobs out of high school. Minorities and women were put on the top of the list. White women cleaned up as they entered the work force enmasse. Lots of fun I tell you. Before that white males were dominant. To be the second half of the baby boomer white males was not the best time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.
> 
> You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.  Not only was I discriminated against at my graduate school, thereby wrecking my career, but so was another Hispanic besides me, plus 2 Asians, and 7 women, plus all the whites.
> 
> Only blacks got AA assistantships . Pure black privilege racism, that the college administrators should have been jailed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
Click to expand...


You should watch who you call a liar.  More people call you out on your black racism than all the whites here combined.


----------



## IM2

Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.
> 
> You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.  Not only was I discriminated against at my graduate school, thereby wrecking my career, but so was another Hispanic besides me, plus 2 Asians, and 7 women, plus all the whites.
> 
> Only blacks got AA assistantships . Pure black privilege racism, that the college administrators should have been jailed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.
> 
> You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.  Not only was I discriminated against at my graduate school, thereby wrecking my career, but so was another Hispanic besides me, plus 2 Asians, and 7 women, plus all the whites.
> 
> Only blacks got AA assistantships . Pure black privilege racism, that the college administrators should have been jailed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should watch who you call a liar.  More people call you out on your black racism than all the whites here combined.
Click to expand...


That's a lie and calling me a black racist is a lie.


----------



## IM2

*"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."

This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.



You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.

You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:

_"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_

12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog

According to Uncle Scam:

*"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."

_Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."

Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics

Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:

U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States

So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.

As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???

*NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout. 

Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.

You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.
> 
> You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.  Not only was I discriminated against at my graduate school, thereby wrecking my career, but so was another Hispanic besides me, plus 2 Asians, and 7 women, plus all the whites.
> 
> Only blacks got AA assistantships . Pure black privilege racism, that the college administrators should have been jailed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again. I experienced it. There were many others that experienced it. Applying for employment at electric companies, gas work companies, post office, police departments, and on and on. If the people masquerading as newsmen actually did their work they would report it. Those white guys who went to college at that time still had opportunities as the universities were not infected yet. I will never forget it. Even after leaving the military and getting some points for job tests it still existed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I experienced being black during the same time. You were not discriminated against. Those businesses were forced to hire because the had discriminated against minorities and women. Even then, white men were still discriminating against people of color and women.
> 
> You are complaining because whites could no longer discriminate by law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile.  Not only was I discriminated against at my graduate school, thereby wrecking my career, but so was another Hispanic besides me, plus 2 Asians, and 7 women, plus all the whites.
> 
> Only blacks got AA assistantships . Pure black privilege racism, that the college administrators should have been jailed for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should watch who you call a liar.  More people call you out on your black racism than all the whites here combined.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie and calling me a black racist is a lie.
Click to expand...


My previous post in response to you proves, unequivocally, that you lie.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.


FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is inaccurate, but the left wing / liberal / socialist/ communist combine writes the rules and to the victor goes the spoils.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a black supremacist, racist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, someone who was crying and calling the police because his feelings were hurt when a poster here called him a dumbass, should not be calling anyone else names.
> 
> How well do you think that's going to play in your poor pitiful me elder abuse case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot better than your grade in the Quiz for Liberals, that you punked out of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A zero for a quiz I didn't take huh lol?
> 
> In my world a zero means "success".
Click to expand...

Zero means total failure.  Yes a zero for dodging the quiz
  When I was in school if you deliberately failed to take a test, you got a zero.  Nothing's changed 

Now admit that you just have no clue who those people in the quiz are.


----------



## Desperado

What is White Supremacy?
An excuse for Black dependency


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
Click to expand...


Son, you ain't spanking nobody. Your racism is apparent. What I have said here I have said to whites directly. The first rule of debate is to state your premise. Telling black people whites are superior and America is the whites mans country will end your life in some places, much less being called a name. Announcing a belief that has been proven wrong, such as yours about the supremacy of whites is not debate.

*"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom. "*

The founding documents say all men are created equal. That alone renders your commentary to white racist lunacy. The rules of debate say that you present facts and support those facts. My premise is that the root cause of the problem blacks face is white racism I can prove that. You have no rebuttal. 

_" Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:"
_
Let's look at the *FACTS*:

White males are 31 percent of the population but have 54 percent of the jobs.  White males are vastly overrepresented in the workforce. You talk about 1.3 percent, but white men are overrepresented by over 20 percent. Using the same Department of labor chart you cited, as of December 2019, white unemployment was 2.8 percent, nearly 1 point below the national rate. Table A-2.  Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age You see junior, this is where your ass whipping begins. Black unemployment was 5.8 percent. Historically or unemployment rate has been double that of whites, and not, it's not due to lack of education.

*Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire*

*Devah Pager
Princeton University
*
Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?

Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.

To address these issues, I recently conducted a series of experiments investigating employment discrimination. In these experiments, which took place in Milwaukee and New York City, I hired young men to pose as job applicants, assigning them resumes with equal levels of education and experience, and sending them to apply for real entry-level job openings all over the city.

Team members also alternated presenting information about a fictitious criminal record (a drug felony), which they “fessed up to” on the application form. During nearly a year of fieldwork, teams of testers audited hundreds of employers, applying for a wide range of entry level jobs such as waiters, sales assistants, laborers, warehouse workers, couriers, and customer service representatives.
*
The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.*

Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire

*White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records*

Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled “Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.”

In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.

Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers. It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.

However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records.

So, even when a white employer knows that the white applicant she is interviewing is a convict and the black applicant has never been in trouble with the law, she is as likely to hire the white applicant as the black applicant.

White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI Blog

Whites have made it at our expense for the entire 243 years of this nations history and 400 years if you include the colony days. For 245 years we built this country didn't get paid for it and whites like you are living off the interest.

*In 1959 poverty for blacks was 55.1 percent. For whites it was White 18.1.* Black poverty 3.044198895027624 times that of whites. This is 6 years before the Civil Rights Act and during legalized segregation. *In 1966, poverty for Blacks was 41.8 percent. For whites it was  11.3 percent.* Black poverty was 3.699115044247788 times that of whites. This is one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed and whites were still trying to figure it out. *In 1975, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 9.7 percent.*  Black poverty 3.22680412371134 times that of whites 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. *In 1985, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 11.4 percent.* Black poverty 2.745614035087719 times that of whites 20 years after the civil rights act was passed. One would think that if a real concerted effort had been made by whites relative to hiring and equal pay this would not be the case.

*In 2000, Poverty for Blacks was 22.5 percent. For Whites 9.5 percent. *Black poverty was 2.368421052631579 times that of whites 35 years after the Civil Rights Act. In 35 years black poverty was still twice that of whites and had decreased basically by less than a point from 1959. Therefore one can reasonably conclude that either programs and policies designed to lower poverty in the black community did not work, or the necessary effort and emphasis was not placed in trying to do what it takes to lower poverty in the black community so that it is at least comparable to that of whites.

*In 2014, Poverty for Blacks was 26.2 percent. For Whites 12.7 percent.* 49 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Black poverty was 2.062992125984252 times that of whites. Since 1959 this represents approximately .98 of a percentage point difference. From 1966, It represents approximately a 1.7 percentage decrease in over a 50 year span between blacks and whites. *These numbers are cited from the US Department of the census.*

In order to reach true equality in a capitalist system all must have equal control of capital, especially in our own communities. *Blacks have an economy of 1.3 trillion dollars*. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are *2.6 million Black-owned business in the United States, compared to 22.6 million white-owned businesses*. *Blacks/African Americans, who make up more than 13% of the U.S. population, only own about 7% of all the businesses in the country, and generate only about 0.5% of total receipts*. Out of those 2.6 million businesses, 95 percent were sole proprietorships with no hired employees. 109,000 of these businesses were able to hire employees. Those businesses hired over 975,000 people.   

*Because of racism by whites,  Americans face internal trade deficits of our own making. *

Racists are very good at instructing everyone as to the percentage of blacks in the population. And they extrapolate exaggerated numbers about crime, often conflating murder with total crime. But somehow and really it's done on purpose because we are dealing with racists, are other important statistical data is not discussed.

* Blacks are 13 percent of the American population but have 2.6 percent of the wealth.* This did not happen because of laziness. Indeed, the historical records shows that blacks have consistently worked as hard or harder than whites and for far less money, including over 230 years for free. Equality in a capitalist system means we have 13 percent of the wealth. *We have 1/5 the wealth we should have in proportion to our population.

Last:*

A 2013 IPSOS poll showed that a full one third of whites that responded to that poll disagreed with white supremacist groups but held the same views. So many whites talk like they are blind on this matter. Most blacks keep how they feel about this to themselves when around white people. The cost of internalizing this anger shows up in the rate of high blood pressure among blacks.
*
*
_*“Thirty-one percent of Americans polled strongly or somewhat agreed that ‘America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.”*_

* 
White people are the majority of the U.S. population, totaling about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites are 62.6% of the country's population. *According to this poll, we are looking at potentially *76 million whites that continue to share the views of white supremacists*. These numbers equal approximately 1/5th of the American population at that time. It is safe to say these numbers have not reduced.  In contrast, 0.0046% of Americans were murdered in 2013.

I was born here boy, and the first amendment tells me if I am displeased with the system, I can air my grievance. So again, if that's not something you cannot tolerate, find another country to live in. Pointing out continuing racism by whites isn't hate. It's called the truth. And I  am retired, so I will do whatever please. So every time I post the truth about white racism, bring what you think you have son. Because I don't mind taking a racist to the woodshed.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, you ain't spanking nobody. Your racism is apparent. What I have said here I have said to whites directly. The first rule of debate is to state your premise. Telling black people whites are superior and America is the whites mans country will end your life in some places, much less being called a name. Announcing a belief that has been proven wrong, such as yours about the supremacy of whites is not debate.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom. "*
> 
> The founding documents say all men are created equal. That alone renders your commentary to white racist lunacy. The rules of debate say that you present facts and support those facts. My premise is that the root cause of the problem blacks face is white racism I can prove that. You have no rebuttal.
> 
> _" Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:"
> _
> Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> White males are 31 percent of the population but have 54 percent of the jobs.  White males are vastly overrepresented in the workforce. You talk about 1.3 percent, but white men are overrepresented by over 20 percent. Using the same Department of labor chart you cited, as of December 2019, white unemployment was 2.8 percent, nearly 1 point below the national rate. Table A-2.  Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age You see junior, this is where your ass whipping begins. Black unemployment was 5.8 percent. Historically or unemployment rate has been double that of whites, and not, it's not due to lack of education.
> 
> *Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire*
> 
> *Devah Pager*
> *Princeton University*
> 
> Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?
> 
> Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.
> 
> To address these issues, I recently conducted a series of experiments investigating employment discrimination. In these experiments, which took place in Milwaukee and New York City, I hired young men to pose as job applicants, assigning them resumes with equal levels of education and experience, and sending them to apply for real entry-level job openings all over the city.
> 
> Team members also alternated presenting information about a fictitious criminal record (a drug felony), which they “fessed up to” on the application form. During nearly a year of fieldwork, teams of testers audited hundreds of employers, applying for a wide range of entry level jobs such as waiters, sales assistants, laborers, warehouse workers, couriers, and customer service representatives.
> 
> *The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.*
> 
> Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire
> 
> *White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records*
> 
> Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled “Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.”
> 
> In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.
> 
> Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers. It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.
> 
> However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records.
> 
> So, even when a white employer knows that the white applicant she is interviewing is a convict and the black applicant has never been in trouble with the law, she is as likely to hire the white applicant as the black applicant.
> 
> White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI Blog
> 
> Whites have made it at our expense for the entire 243 years of this nations history and 400 years if you include the colony days. For 245 years we built this country didn't get paid for it and whites like you are living off the interest.
> 
> *In 1959 poverty for blacks was 55.1 percent. For whites it was White 18.1.* Black poverty 3.044198895027624 times that of whites. This is 6 years before the Civil Rights Act and during legalized segregation. *In 1966, poverty for Blacks was 41.8 percent. For whites it was  11.3 percent.* Black poverty was 3.699115044247788 times that of whites. This is one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed and whites were still trying to figure it out. *In 1975, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 9.7 percent.*  Black poverty 3.22680412371134 times that of whites 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. *In 1985, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 11.4 percent.* Black poverty 2.745614035087719 times that of whites 20 years after the civil rights act was passed. One would think that if a real concerted effort had been made by whites relative to hiring and equal pay this would not be the case.
> 
> *In 2000, Poverty for Blacks was 22.5 percent. For Whites 9.5 percent. *Black poverty was 2.368421052631579 times that of whites 35 years after the Civil Rights Act. In 35 years black poverty was still twice that of whites and had decreased basically by less than a point from 1959. Therefore one can reasonably conclude that either programs and policies designed to lower poverty in the black community did not work, or the necessary effort and emphasis was not placed in trying to do what it takes to lower poverty in the black community so that it is at least comparable to that of whites.
> 
> *In 2014, Poverty for Blacks was 26.2 percent. For Whites 12.7 percent.* 49 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Black poverty was 2.062992125984252 times that of whites. Since 1959 this represents approximately .98 of a percentage point difference. From 1966, It represents approximately a 1.7 percentage decrease in over a 50 year span between blacks and whites. *These numbers are cited from the US Department of the census.*
> 
> In order to reach true equality in a capitalist system all must have equal control of capital, especially in our own communities. *Blacks have an economy of 1.3 trillion dollars*. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are *2.6 million Black-owned business in the United States, compared to 22.6 million white-owned businesses*. *Blacks/African Americans, who make up more than 13% of the U.S. population, only own about 7% of all the businesses in the country, and generate only about 0.5% of total receipts*. Out of those 2.6 million businesses, 95 percent were sole proprietorships with no hired employees. 109,000 of these businesses were able to hire employees. Those businesses hired over 975,000 people.
> 
> *Because of racism by whites,  Americans face internal trade deficits of our own making. *
> 
> Racists are very good at instructing everyone as to the percentage of blacks in the population. And they extrapolate exaggerated numbers about crime, often conflating murder with total crime. But somehow and really it's done on purpose because we are dealing with racists, are other important statistical data is not discussed.
> 
> * Blacks are 13 percent of the American population but have 2.6 percent of the wealth.* This did not happen because of laziness. Indeed, the historical records shows that blacks have consistently worked as hard or harder than whites and for far less money, including over 230 years for free. Equality in a capitalist system means we have 13 percent of the wealth. *We have 1/5 the wealth we should have in proportion to our population.
> 
> Last:*
> 
> A 2013 IPSOS poll showed that a full one third of whites that responded to that poll disagreed with white supremacist groups but held the same views. So many whites talk like they are blind on this matter. Most blacks keep how they feel about this to themselves when around white people. The cost of internalizing this anger shows up in the rate of high blood pressure among blacks.
> *
> *
> _*“Thirty-one percent of Americans polled strongly or somewhat agreed that ‘America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.”*_
> 
> *
> White people are the majority of the U.S. population, totaling about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites are 62.6% of the country's population. *According to this poll, we are looking at potentially *76 million whites that continue to share the views of white supremacists*. These numbers equal approximately 1/5th of the American population at that time. It is safe to say these numbers have not reduced.  In contrast, 0.0046% of Americans were murdered in 2013.
> 
> I was born here boy, and the first amendment tells me if I am displeased with the system, I can air my grievance. So again, if that's not something you cannot tolerate, find another country to live in. Pointing out continuing racism by whites isn't hate. It's called the truth. And I  am retired, so I will do whatever please. So every time I post the truth about white racism, bring what you think you have son. Because I don't mind taking a racist to the woodshed.
Click to expand...


Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.  Everybody bitches at me when I do 10 paragraphs and they go TLDR.

Son, you are a straight out L*IED AND CONTINUE TO LIE*.  Don't mean to mention it again, but you just got your ass spanked once.  Don't make me pick apart your hate filled horse dung again.

I haven't called you names; have NOT proclaimed any superiority; don't need to write a freaking book in order to make a point.

During my lifetime, the blacks have had the United States handed to them on a platter while everyone else (all other races) have had to earn their keep.  My reputation was built on facing people *you WOULD LIKE TO BE LIKE BUT LACK THE BALLS* in public debates.  The fact that the mods don't ban you for name calling is proof to me that because the hue of your skin, you are privileged.  When I see you on tv or radio - or get that PM telling me to name the time and place, then you will remain little more than a keyboard commando, afraid to face anyone on a level playing field and spew that hate filled B.S. you post in every race related thread on USM.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> *NOBODY* owes me a job. I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want. It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers. The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.


Why do you think the founders wrote these words?





We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men are created equal*, that *they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights*, that among these are _*life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*_. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. _*That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it*_, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them _*shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness*_.​Things change.  During the hundreds of years when whites were getting not just the lion's share of jobs at the expense of black workers, but the mortgages, college admiision slots, prime interest rates on consumer loans, etc. why was racial discrimination not a problem then, why only now?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job. I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want. It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers. The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think the founders wrote these words?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men are created equal*, that *they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights*, that among these are _*life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness*_. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. _*That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it*_, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them _*shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness*_.​Things change.  During the hundreds of years when whites were getting not just the lion's share of jobs at the expense of black workers, but the mortgages, college admiision slots, prime interest rates on consumer loans, etc. why was racial discrimination not a problem then, why only now?
Click to expand...


I* know* why those words were written and apparently you do not.  You are conflating *unalienable *Rights with citizenship. 

Like IM2, I can post a book of my own research explaining this to you.  If you want to amend the Constitution, be my guest.  OTOH, no legitimate government can alter *unalienable* Rights even with an amendment without creating a bastardized form of government where *NOBODY *will have any Rights... kind of like what you're doing now. 

Liberals and racists bitch about who gets what and then both sides vote for a bigger and more intrusive government.  You need a course in Civics 101.  

Having debated the movers and shakers of my era on tv, radio, in public rallies, and in newspapers / tv shows I don't have a clue as to what you're talking about.  Screwing whites out of jobs or anything else as if someone owes you a freaking living don't play well with me.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
Click to expand...

Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> I* know* why those words were written and apparently you do not. You are conflating *unalienable *Rights with citizenship.


I am doing no such thing.  I asked you a question and instead of answering it you went off on a tangent apparently to distract from the contradictions in your assertions and beliefs.

And while I am aware of the difference between unalienable rights and citizenship which for people of African descent required the passage of the 13th amendment and then the 14th amendmend due to the Dred Scot decision to rectify the damage done, that still doesn't provide an answer as to why several centuries of racial discrimination was no big deal to white racists yet a little over 50 years of whites losing their corner on the job market invokes such painful cries of "unfair".  

Whites are not getting "screwed" out of jobs if for no other reason than they were never entitled to 100% of the job opportunities in the first place.  Loss of preferential treatment may feel like discrimination but it's not.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
Click to expand...


He can't. But he knows he can get away with repeating that lie with his stormfront buddies here.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I* know* why those words were written and apparently you do not. You are conflating *unalienable *Rights with citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing.  I asked you a question and instead of answering it you went off on a tangent apparently to distract from the contradictions in your assertions and beliefs.
> 
> And while I am aware of the difference between unalienable rights and citizenship which for people of African descent required the passage of the 13th amendment and then the 14th amendmend due to the Dred Scot decision to rectify the damage done, that still doesn't provide an answer as to why several centuries of racial discrimination was no big deal to white racists yet a little over 50 years of whites losing their corner on the job market invokes such painful cries of "unfair".
> 
> Whites are not getting "screwed" out of jobs if for no other reason than they were never entitled to 100% of the job opportunities in the first place.  Loss of preferential treatment may feel like discrimination but it's not.
Click to expand...


*PREACH!*


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, you ain't spanking nobody. Your racism is apparent. What I have said here I have said to whites directly. The first rule of debate is to state your premise. Telling black people whites are superior and America is the whites mans country will end your life in some places, much less being called a name. Announcing a belief that has been proven wrong, such as yours about the supremacy of whites is not debate.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom. "*
> 
> The founding documents say all men are created equal. That alone renders your commentary to white racist lunacy. The rules of debate say that you present facts and support those facts. My premise is that the root cause of the problem blacks face is white racism I can prove that. You have no rebuttal.
> 
> _" Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:"
> _
> Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> White males are 31 percent of the population but have 54 percent of the jobs.  White males are vastly overrepresented in the workforce. You talk about 1.3 percent, but white men are overrepresented by over 20 percent. Using the same Department of labor chart you cited, as of December 2019, white unemployment was 2.8 percent, nearly 1 point below the national rate. Table A-2.  Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age You see junior, this is where your ass whipping begins. Black unemployment was 5.8 percent. Historically or unemployment rate has been double that of whites, and not, it's not due to lack of education.
> 
> *Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire*
> 
> *Devah Pager*
> *Princeton University*
> 
> Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?
> 
> Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.
> 
> To address these issues, I recently conducted a series of experiments investigating employment discrimination. In these experiments, which took place in Milwaukee and New York City, I hired young men to pose as job applicants, assigning them resumes with equal levels of education and experience, and sending them to apply for real entry-level job openings all over the city.
> 
> Team members also alternated presenting information about a fictitious criminal record (a drug felony), which they “fessed up to” on the application form. During nearly a year of fieldwork, teams of testers audited hundreds of employers, applying for a wide range of entry level jobs such as waiters, sales assistants, laborers, warehouse workers, couriers, and customer service representatives.
> 
> *The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.*
> 
> Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire
> 
> *White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records*
> 
> Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled “Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.”
> 
> In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.
> 
> Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers. It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.
> 
> However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records.
> 
> So, even when a white employer knows that the white applicant she is interviewing is a convict and the black applicant has never been in trouble with the law, she is as likely to hire the white applicant as the black applicant.
> 
> White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI Blog
> 
> Whites have made it at our expense for the entire 243 years of this nations history and 400 years if you include the colony days. For 245 years we built this country didn't get paid for it and whites like you are living off the interest.
> 
> *In 1959 poverty for blacks was 55.1 percent. For whites it was White 18.1.* Black poverty 3.044198895027624 times that of whites. This is 6 years before the Civil Rights Act and during legalized segregation. *In 1966, poverty for Blacks was 41.8 percent. For whites it was  11.3 percent.* Black poverty was 3.699115044247788 times that of whites. This is one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed and whites were still trying to figure it out. *In 1975, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 9.7 percent.*  Black poverty 3.22680412371134 times that of whites 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. *In 1985, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 11.4 percent.* Black poverty 2.745614035087719 times that of whites 20 years after the civil rights act was passed. One would think that if a real concerted effort had been made by whites relative to hiring and equal pay this would not be the case.
> 
> *In 2000, Poverty for Blacks was 22.5 percent. For Whites 9.5 percent. *Black poverty was 2.368421052631579 times that of whites 35 years after the Civil Rights Act. In 35 years black poverty was still twice that of whites and had decreased basically by less than a point from 1959. Therefore one can reasonably conclude that either programs and policies designed to lower poverty in the black community did not work, or the necessary effort and emphasis was not placed in trying to do what it takes to lower poverty in the black community so that it is at least comparable to that of whites.
> 
> *In 2014, Poverty for Blacks was 26.2 percent. For Whites 12.7 percent.* 49 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Black poverty was 2.062992125984252 times that of whites. Since 1959 this represents approximately .98 of a percentage point difference. From 1966, It represents approximately a 1.7 percentage decrease in over a 50 year span between blacks and whites. *These numbers are cited from the US Department of the census.*
> 
> In order to reach true equality in a capitalist system all must have equal control of capital, especially in our own communities. *Blacks have an economy of 1.3 trillion dollars*. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are *2.6 million Black-owned business in the United States, compared to 22.6 million white-owned businesses*. *Blacks/African Americans, who make up more than 13% of the U.S. population, only own about 7% of all the businesses in the country, and generate only about 0.5% of total receipts*. Out of those 2.6 million businesses, 95 percent were sole proprietorships with no hired employees. 109,000 of these businesses were able to hire employees. Those businesses hired over 975,000 people.
> 
> *Because of racism by whites,  Americans face internal trade deficits of our own making. *
> 
> Racists are very good at instructing everyone as to the percentage of blacks in the population. And they extrapolate exaggerated numbers about crime, often conflating murder with total crime. But somehow and really it's done on purpose because we are dealing with racists, are other important statistical data is not discussed.
> 
> * Blacks are 13 percent of the American population but have 2.6 percent of the wealth.* This did not happen because of laziness. Indeed, the historical records shows that blacks have consistently worked as hard or harder than whites and for far less money, including over 230 years for free. Equality in a capitalist system means we have 13 percent of the wealth. *We have 1/5 the wealth we should have in proportion to our population.
> 
> Last:*
> 
> A 2013 IPSOS poll showed that a full one third of whites that responded to that poll disagreed with white supremacist groups but held the same views. So many whites talk like they are blind on this matter. Most blacks keep how they feel about this to themselves when around white people. The cost of internalizing this anger shows up in the rate of high blood pressure among blacks.
> *
> *
> _*“Thirty-one percent of Americans polled strongly or somewhat agreed that ‘America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.”*_
> 
> *
> White people are the majority of the U.S. population, totaling about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites are 62.6% of the country's population. *According to this poll, we are looking at potentially *76 million whites that continue to share the views of white supremacists*. These numbers equal approximately 1/5th of the American population at that time. It is safe to say these numbers have not reduced.  In contrast, 0.0046% of Americans were murdered in 2013.
> 
> I was born here boy, and the first amendment tells me if I am displeased with the system, I can air my grievance. So again, if that's not something you cannot tolerate, find another country to live in. Pointing out continuing racism by whites isn't hate. It's called the truth. And I  am retired, so I will do whatever please. So every time I post the truth about white racism, bring what you think you have son. Because I don't mind taking a racist to the woodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.  Everybody bitches at me when I do 10 paragraphs and they go TLDR.
> 
> Son, you are a straight out L*IED AND CONTINUE TO LIE*.  Don't mean to mention it again, but you just got your ass spanked once.  Don't make me pick apart your hate filled horse dung again.
> 
> I haven't called you names; have NOT proclaimed any superiority; don't need to write a freaking book in order to make a point.
> 
> During my lifetime, the blacks have had the United States handed to them on a platter while everyone else (all other races) have had to earn their keep.  My reputation was built on facing people *you WOULD LIKE TO BE LIKE BUT LACK THE BALLS* in public debates.  The fact that the mods don't ban you for name calling is proof to me that because the hue of your skin, you are privileged.  When I see you on tv or radio - or get that PM telling me to name the time and place, then you will remain little more than a keyboard commando, afraid to face anyone on a level playing field and spew that hate filled B.S. you post in every race related thread on USM.
Click to expand...


Junior, I have made city governments end racist policy. YOU, are no match. Whites have been given everything by the government. You can't win a debate with me and now want to whine about name calling. Well the white identity crap you posted about America being founded by whites and the 14th amendment being illegal is against forum rules too. I'm not crying about that like you're whining about being called a name. Furthermore you have called a racist numerous times along with the other stormfront troopers. I hate to break it to you, but that's name calling too. So what I do is shred your arguments with fact. You can't debate me and win with the lunacy you believe. Because what you believe is fake news. It's not 1790 anymore and the courts have ruled, because this never was the white man's land. So as the great philosopher Muddy Waters once said:

*“You  can’t spend what you ain’t got, and you can’t lose something that you ain’t never had.” *​So come a pickin, because you're nobody. Just another incel white racist behind a keyboard. I have nothing to prove to you. I've done my share of debating, and you've debated no one of consequence. You would get annihilated by the likes of Dr. Dyson, Dr. Carol Anderson, Lani Guinier, Cornell West, and I wish Dr. Cress-Welsing was still here with us. Tim Wise would make you retire. You have not bought that "this country was founded for whites" mess anywhere but to alt right media.

I'm nearly 59 years old son. I had my days of kicking racist whites asses on the street. I won't be fighting like that now. At this time, I sit on a committee  fighting the police. That's how I fight now. Beating a racists ass on the street makes me end up as another statistic a sorry racist bum like you will use to claim black violence. So I work in coalitions of like minded people interested in change. And while you live out In Utah calling yourself Porter Rockwell, you'd never walk up to a black mans face and tell him America is only for whites and if he didn't like it, you got some ticket to Africa for him. Your life would change drastically after you made such a comment.

But I have stood in front of mayors, US congressional and senate reps and actually 2 presidential candidates and have said most of the things I have said to you today. When you stand for right, there is nothing to fear. You would not know anything about that.


----------



## cnm

Porter Rockwell said:


> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.


You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, you ain't spanking nobody. Your racism is apparent. What I have said here I have said to whites directly. The first rule of debate is to state your premise. Telling black people whites are superior and America is the whites mans country will end your life in some places, much less being called a name. Announcing a belief that has been proven wrong, such as yours about the supremacy of whites is not debate.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom. "*
> 
> The founding documents say all men are created equal. That alone renders your commentary to white racist lunacy. The rules of debate say that you present facts and support those facts. My premise is that the root cause of the problem blacks face is white racism I can prove that. You have no rebuttal.
> 
> _" Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:"
> _
> Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> White males are 31 percent of the population but have 54 percent of the jobs.  White males are vastly overrepresented in the workforce. You talk about 1.3 percent, but white men are overrepresented by over 20 percent. Using the same Department of labor chart you cited, as of December 2019, white unemployment was 2.8 percent, nearly 1 point below the national rate. Table A-2.  Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age You see junior, this is where your ass whipping begins. Black unemployment was 5.8 percent. Historically or unemployment rate has been double that of whites, and not, it's not due to lack of education.
> 
> *Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire*
> 
> *Devah Pager*
> *Princeton University*
> 
> Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?
> 
> Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.
> 
> To address these issues, I recently conducted a series of experiments investigating employment discrimination. In these experiments, which took place in Milwaukee and New York City, I hired young men to pose as job applicants, assigning them resumes with equal levels of education and experience, and sending them to apply for real entry-level job openings all over the city.
> 
> Team members also alternated presenting information about a fictitious criminal record (a drug felony), which they “fessed up to” on the application form. During nearly a year of fieldwork, teams of testers audited hundreds of employers, applying for a wide range of entry level jobs such as waiters, sales assistants, laborers, warehouse workers, couriers, and customer service representatives.
> 
> *The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.*
> 
> Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire
> 
> *White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records*
> 
> Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled “Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.”
> 
> In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.
> 
> Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers. It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.
> 
> However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records.
> 
> So, even when a white employer knows that the white applicant she is interviewing is a convict and the black applicant has never been in trouble with the law, she is as likely to hire the white applicant as the black applicant.
> 
> White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI Blog
> 
> Whites have made it at our expense for the entire 243 years of this nations history and 400 years if you include the colony days. For 245 years we built this country didn't get paid for it and whites like you are living off the interest.
> 
> *In 1959 poverty for blacks was 55.1 percent. For whites it was White 18.1.* Black poverty 3.044198895027624 times that of whites. This is 6 years before the Civil Rights Act and during legalized segregation. *In 1966, poverty for Blacks was 41.8 percent. For whites it was  11.3 percent.* Black poverty was 3.699115044247788 times that of whites. This is one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed and whites were still trying to figure it out. *In 1975, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 9.7 percent.*  Black poverty 3.22680412371134 times that of whites 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. *In 1985, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 11.4 percent.* Black poverty 2.745614035087719 times that of whites 20 years after the civil rights act was passed. One would think that if a real concerted effort had been made by whites relative to hiring and equal pay this would not be the case.
> 
> *In 2000, Poverty for Blacks was 22.5 percent. For Whites 9.5 percent. *Black poverty was 2.368421052631579 times that of whites 35 years after the Civil Rights Act. In 35 years black poverty was still twice that of whites and had decreased basically by less than a point from 1959. Therefore one can reasonably conclude that either programs and policies designed to lower poverty in the black community did not work, or the necessary effort and emphasis was not placed in trying to do what it takes to lower poverty in the black community so that it is at least comparable to that of whites.
> 
> *In 2014, Poverty for Blacks was 26.2 percent. For Whites 12.7 percent.* 49 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Black poverty was 2.062992125984252 times that of whites. Since 1959 this represents approximately .98 of a percentage point difference. From 1966, It represents approximately a 1.7 percentage decrease in over a 50 year span between blacks and whites. *These numbers are cited from the US Department of the census.*
> 
> In order to reach true equality in a capitalist system all must have equal control of capital, especially in our own communities. *Blacks have an economy of 1.3 trillion dollars*. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are *2.6 million Black-owned business in the United States, compared to 22.6 million white-owned businesses*. *Blacks/African Americans, who make up more than 13% of the U.S. population, only own about 7% of all the businesses in the country, and generate only about 0.5% of total receipts*. Out of those 2.6 million businesses, 95 percent were sole proprietorships with no hired employees. 109,000 of these businesses were able to hire employees. Those businesses hired over 975,000 people.
> 
> *Because of racism by whites,  Americans face internal trade deficits of our own making. *
> 
> Racists are very good at instructing everyone as to the percentage of blacks in the population. And they extrapolate exaggerated numbers about crime, often conflating murder with total crime. But somehow and really it's done on purpose because we are dealing with racists, are other important statistical data is not discussed.
> 
> * Blacks are 13 percent of the American population but have 2.6 percent of the wealth.* This did not happen because of laziness. Indeed, the historical records shows that blacks have consistently worked as hard or harder than whites and for far less money, including over 230 years for free. Equality in a capitalist system means we have 13 percent of the wealth. *We have 1/5 the wealth we should have in proportion to our population.
> 
> Last:*
> 
> A 2013 IPSOS poll showed that a full one third of whites that responded to that poll disagreed with white supremacist groups but held the same views. So many whites talk like they are blind on this matter. Most blacks keep how they feel about this to themselves when around white people. The cost of internalizing this anger shows up in the rate of high blood pressure among blacks.
> *
> *
> _*“Thirty-one percent of Americans polled strongly or somewhat agreed that ‘America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.”*_
> 
> *
> White people are the majority of the U.S. population, totaling about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites are 62.6% of the country's population. *According to this poll, we are looking at potentially *76 million whites that continue to share the views of white supremacists*. These numbers equal approximately 1/5th of the American population at that time. It is safe to say these numbers have not reduced.  In contrast, 0.0046% of Americans were murdered in 2013.
> 
> I was born here boy, and the first amendment tells me if I am displeased with the system, I can air my grievance. So again, if that's not something you cannot tolerate, find another country to live in. Pointing out continuing racism by whites isn't hate. It's called the truth. And I  am retired, so I will do whatever please. So every time I post the truth about white racism, bring what you think you have son. Because I don't mind taking a racist to the woodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.  Everybody bitches at me when I do 10 paragraphs and they go TLDR.
> 
> Son, you are a straight out L*IED AND CONTINUE TO LIE*.  Don't mean to mention it again, but you just got your ass spanked once.  Don't make me pick apart your hate filled horse dung again.
> 
> I haven't called you names; have NOT proclaimed any superiority; don't need to write a freaking book in order to make a point.
> 
> During my lifetime, the blacks have had the United States handed to them on a platter while everyone else (all other races) have had to earn their keep.  My reputation was built on facing people *you WOULD LIKE TO BE LIKE BUT LACK THE BALLS* in public debates.  The fact that the mods don't ban you for name calling is proof to me that because the hue of your skin, you are privileged.  When I see you on tv or radio - or get that PM telling me to name the time and place, then you will remain little more than a keyboard commando, afraid to face anyone on a level playing field and spew that hate filled B.S. you post in every race related thread on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have made city governments end racist policy. YOU, are no match. Whites have been given everything by the government. You can't win a debate with me and now want to whine about name calling. Well the white identity crap you posted about America being founded by whites and the 14th amendment being illegal is against forum rules too. I'm not crying about that like you're whining about being called a name. Furthermore you have called a racist numerous times along with the other stormfront troopers. I hate to break it to you, but that's name calling too. So what I do is shred your arguments with fact. You can't debate me and win with the lunacy you believe. Because what you believe is fake news. It's not 1790 anymore and the courts have ruled, because this never was the white man's land. So as the great philosopher Muddy Waters once said:
> 
> *“You  can’t spend what you ain’t got, and you can’t lose something that you ain’t never had.” *​So come a pickin, because you're nobody. Just another incel white racist behind a keyboard. I have nothing to prove to you.
Click to expand...

There is so much more then racism or racist policies. There are people who may not be liked by their personality. There are people who may have personal issues that people will mess with. And there are more then a few. The government side by your writings is supported by the taxpayers. To you it is an endless amount of resources. There are plenty of people who struggle that are not of your interests. In fact government has gotten very expensive. To the point where people leave once more economical places to live in the region they lived to others that are still viable. Forums like this, are just that. I believe most people that type on forums are just people. People who over bloviate on their soap boxes.Unless they are shills mining for information. Which is something totally different. And that in itself is a form of anti love. Government at some point will be so overextended it may collapse upon itself. Then what will people do?


----------



## IM2

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, you ain't spanking nobody. Your racism is apparent. What I have said here I have said to whites directly. The first rule of debate is to state your premise. Telling black people whites are superior and America is the whites mans country will end your life in some places, much less being called a name. Announcing a belief that has been proven wrong, such as yours about the supremacy of whites is not debate.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom. "*
> 
> The founding documents say all men are created equal. That alone renders your commentary to white racist lunacy. The rules of debate say that you present facts and support those facts. My premise is that the root cause of the problem blacks face is white racism I can prove that. You have no rebuttal.
> 
> _" Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:"
> _
> Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> White males are 31 percent of the population but have 54 percent of the jobs.  White males are vastly overrepresented in the workforce. You talk about 1.3 percent, but white men are overrepresented by over 20 percent. Using the same Department of labor chart you cited, as of December 2019, white unemployment was 2.8 percent, nearly 1 point below the national rate. Table A-2.  Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age You see junior, this is where your ass whipping begins. Black unemployment was 5.8 percent. Historically or unemployment rate has been double that of whites, and not, it's not due to lack of education.
> 
> *Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire*
> 
> *Devah Pager*
> *Princeton University*
> 
> Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?
> 
> Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.
> 
> To address these issues, I recently conducted a series of experiments investigating employment discrimination. In these experiments, which took place in Milwaukee and New York City, I hired young men to pose as job applicants, assigning them resumes with equal levels of education and experience, and sending them to apply for real entry-level job openings all over the city.
> 
> Team members also alternated presenting information about a fictitious criminal record (a drug felony), which they “fessed up to” on the application form. During nearly a year of fieldwork, teams of testers audited hundreds of employers, applying for a wide range of entry level jobs such as waiters, sales assistants, laborers, warehouse workers, couriers, and customer service representatives.
> 
> *The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.*
> 
> Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire
> 
> *White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records*
> 
> Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled “Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.”
> 
> In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.
> 
> Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers. It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.
> 
> However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records.
> 
> So, even when a white employer knows that the white applicant she is interviewing is a convict and the black applicant has never been in trouble with the law, she is as likely to hire the white applicant as the black applicant.
> 
> White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI Blog
> 
> Whites have made it at our expense for the entire 243 years of this nations history and 400 years if you include the colony days. For 245 years we built this country didn't get paid for it and whites like you are living off the interest.
> 
> *In 1959 poverty for blacks was 55.1 percent. For whites it was White 18.1.* Black poverty 3.044198895027624 times that of whites. This is 6 years before the Civil Rights Act and during legalized segregation. *In 1966, poverty for Blacks was 41.8 percent. For whites it was  11.3 percent.* Black poverty was 3.699115044247788 times that of whites. This is one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed and whites were still trying to figure it out. *In 1975, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 9.7 percent.*  Black poverty 3.22680412371134 times that of whites 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. *In 1985, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 11.4 percent.* Black poverty 2.745614035087719 times that of whites 20 years after the civil rights act was passed. One would think that if a real concerted effort had been made by whites relative to hiring and equal pay this would not be the case.
> 
> *In 2000, Poverty for Blacks was 22.5 percent. For Whites 9.5 percent. *Black poverty was 2.368421052631579 times that of whites 35 years after the Civil Rights Act. In 35 years black poverty was still twice that of whites and had decreased basically by less than a point from 1959. Therefore one can reasonably conclude that either programs and policies designed to lower poverty in the black community did not work, or the necessary effort and emphasis was not placed in trying to do what it takes to lower poverty in the black community so that it is at least comparable to that of whites.
> 
> *In 2014, Poverty for Blacks was 26.2 percent. For Whites 12.7 percent.* 49 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Black poverty was 2.062992125984252 times that of whites. Since 1959 this represents approximately .98 of a percentage point difference. From 1966, It represents approximately a 1.7 percentage decrease in over a 50 year span between blacks and whites. *These numbers are cited from the US Department of the census.*
> 
> In order to reach true equality in a capitalist system all must have equal control of capital, especially in our own communities. *Blacks have an economy of 1.3 trillion dollars*. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are *2.6 million Black-owned business in the United States, compared to 22.6 million white-owned businesses*. *Blacks/African Americans, who make up more than 13% of the U.S. population, only own about 7% of all the businesses in the country, and generate only about 0.5% of total receipts*. Out of those 2.6 million businesses, 95 percent were sole proprietorships with no hired employees. 109,000 of these businesses were able to hire employees. Those businesses hired over 975,000 people.
> 
> *Because of racism by whites,  Americans face internal trade deficits of our own making. *
> 
> Racists are very good at instructing everyone as to the percentage of blacks in the population. And they extrapolate exaggerated numbers about crime, often conflating murder with total crime. But somehow and really it's done on purpose because we are dealing with racists, are other important statistical data is not discussed.
> 
> * Blacks are 13 percent of the American population but have 2.6 percent of the wealth.* This did not happen because of laziness. Indeed, the historical records shows that blacks have consistently worked as hard or harder than whites and for far less money, including over 230 years for free. Equality in a capitalist system means we have 13 percent of the wealth. *We have 1/5 the wealth we should have in proportion to our population.
> 
> Last:*
> 
> A 2013 IPSOS poll showed that a full one third of whites that responded to that poll disagreed with white supremacist groups but held the same views. So many whites talk like they are blind on this matter. Most blacks keep how they feel about this to themselves when around white people. The cost of internalizing this anger shows up in the rate of high blood pressure among blacks.
> *
> *
> _*“Thirty-one percent of Americans polled strongly or somewhat agreed that ‘America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.”*_
> 
> *
> White people are the majority of the U.S. population, totaling about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites are 62.6% of the country's population. *According to this poll, we are looking at potentially *76 million whites that continue to share the views of white supremacists*. These numbers equal approximately 1/5th of the American population at that time. It is safe to say these numbers have not reduced.  In contrast, 0.0046% of Americans were murdered in 2013.
> 
> I was born here boy, and the first amendment tells me if I am displeased with the system, I can air my grievance. So again, if that's not something you cannot tolerate, find another country to live in. Pointing out continuing racism by whites isn't hate. It's called the truth. And I  am retired, so I will do whatever please. So every time I post the truth about white racism, bring what you think you have son. Because I don't mind taking a racist to the woodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.  Everybody bitches at me when I do 10 paragraphs and they go TLDR.
> 
> Son, you are a straight out L*IED AND CONTINUE TO LIE*.  Don't mean to mention it again, but you just got your ass spanked once.  Don't make me pick apart your hate filled horse dung again.
> 
> I haven't called you names; have NOT proclaimed any superiority; don't need to write a freaking book in order to make a point.
> 
> During my lifetime, the blacks have had the United States handed to them on a platter while everyone else (all other races) have had to earn their keep.  My reputation was built on facing people *you WOULD LIKE TO BE LIKE BUT LACK THE BALLS* in public debates.  The fact that the mods don't ban you for name calling is proof to me that because the hue of your skin, you are privileged.  When I see you on tv or radio - or get that PM telling me to name the time and place, then you will remain little more than a keyboard commando, afraid to face anyone on a level playing field and spew that hate filled B.S. you post in every race related thread on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have made city governments end racist policy. YOU, are no match. Whites have been given everything by the government. You can't win a debate with me and now want to whine about name calling. Well the white identity crap you posted about America being founded by whites and the 14th amendment being illegal is against forum rules too. I'm not crying about that like you're whining about being called a name. Furthermore you have called a racist numerous times along with the other stormfront troopers. I hate to break it to you, but that's name calling too. So what I do is shred your arguments with fact. You can't debate me and win with the lunacy you believe. Because what you believe is fake news. It's not 1790 anymore and the courts have ruled, because this never was the white man's land. So as the great philosopher Muddy Waters once said:
> 
> *“You  can’t spend what you ain’t got, and you can’t lose something that you ain’t never had.” *​So come a pickin, because you're nobody. Just another incel white racist behind a keyboard. I have nothing to prove to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much more then racism or racist policies. There are people who may not be liked by their personality. There are people who may have personal issues that people will mess with. And there are more then a few. The government side by your writings is supported by the taxpayers. To you it is an endless amount of resources. There are plenty of people who struggle that are not of your interests. In fact government has gotten very expensive. To the point where people leave once more economical places to live in the region they lived to others that are still viable. Forums like this, are just that. I believe most people that type on forums are just people. People who over bloviate on their soap boxes.Unless they are shills mining for information. Which is something totally different. And that in itself is a form of anti love. Government at some point will be so overextended it may collapse upon itself. Then what will people do?
Click to expand...


I know the difference when something isn't racist and when something is. Whites such as yourself should spend more time educating yourselves out of racism then trying to explain to people who have to deal with racism every day what is and isn't racist.


----------



## IM2

*"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."* 

But he's not a white supremacist. Nah, not at all.


----------



## zaangalewa

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.



What you explain here has absolutelly nothing to do with "whites". The quintessence of your "idea" is it to misunderstand a jewish-christian message: Under all created animals human beings are the first - the rulers. We are animals - inspired animals - and the rulers of all other living creatures. But this also means: Human beings are not only more free, we are also responsible for the rest of gods living creation. This has absolutelly nothing to do with the color of a skin. The color of the skin has just simple a wide beige spectrum and is only in the very extremes white and black. You follow with your words here an uninspirated, unintelligent, unwise way of overconfidence: _"I am good - all others are bad.". _

After world war 2 were made here in Germany for example lots of scientific tests of intelligence in schools. The very small difference in the average intelligence between white and colored pupils (children from black U.S. soldiers with German women) had not any biological or cultural (traditional) reason. This (very little!) differences had only to do with social problems.

And don't try to tell me now this facts are wrong, because you prefer to think something else. I believe in the supremacy of truth and facts. God is not a liar. We are able to find out, what is really going on in our world. And god loves all of his children - completely independent from any color of the skin.


----------



## AveryJarhman

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.





 
Hello. In this broadcast Mr. Lenon Honor, an apparent caring, sensible, RESPONSIBLE American citizen Keeps it REAL, speaking about what he calls *"The White Supremacy Promotion Hustle"* ~Lenon Honor

Within the first 20 minutes or so of this broadcast, Mr. Honor, who in another video revealed he was raised by an emotionally troubled father, debunks WHITE SUPREMACY as a hoax perpetrated by America's large population of HATEFUL PRO BLACK practicing citizens.


*'Thugs Must Become Public Enemy #1 In The Black Community*' ~Phillip Scott Advise Show




 

Peace.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you ain't spanking nobody. Your racism is apparent. What I have said here I have said to whites directly. The first rule of debate is to state your premise. Telling black people whites are superior and America is the whites mans country will end your life in some places, much less being called a name. Announcing a belief that has been proven wrong, such as yours about the supremacy of whites is not debate.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom. "*
> 
> The founding documents say all men are created equal. That alone renders your commentary to white racist lunacy. The rules of debate say that you present facts and support those facts. My premise is that the root cause of the problem blacks face is white racism I can prove that. You have no rebuttal.
> 
> _" Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:"
> _
> Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> White males are 31 percent of the population but have 54 percent of the jobs.  White males are vastly overrepresented in the workforce. You talk about 1.3 percent, but white men are overrepresented by over 20 percent. Using the same Department of labor chart you cited, as of December 2019, white unemployment was 2.8 percent, nearly 1 point below the national rate. Table A-2.  Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age You see junior, this is where your ass whipping begins. Black unemployment was 5.8 percent. Historically or unemployment rate has been double that of whites, and not, it's not due to lack of education.
> 
> *Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire*
> 
> *Devah Pager*
> *Princeton University*
> 
> Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?
> 
> Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.
> 
> To address these issues, I recently conducted a series of experiments investigating employment discrimination. In these experiments, which took place in Milwaukee and New York City, I hired young men to pose as job applicants, assigning them resumes with equal levels of education and experience, and sending them to apply for real entry-level job openings all over the city.
> 
> Team members also alternated presenting information about a fictitious criminal record (a drug felony), which they “fessed up to” on the application form. During nearly a year of fieldwork, teams of testers audited hundreds of employers, applying for a wide range of entry level jobs such as waiters, sales assistants, laborers, warehouse workers, couriers, and customer service representatives.
> 
> *The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.*
> 
> Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire
> 
> *White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records*
> 
> Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled “Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.”
> 
> In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.
> 
> Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers. It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.
> 
> However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records.
> 
> So, even when a white employer knows that the white applicant she is interviewing is a convict and the black applicant has never been in trouble with the law, she is as likely to hire the white applicant as the black applicant.
> 
> White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI Blog
> 
> Whites have made it at our expense for the entire 243 years of this nations history and 400 years if you include the colony days. For 245 years we built this country didn't get paid for it and whites like you are living off the interest.
> 
> *In 1959 poverty for blacks was 55.1 percent. For whites it was White 18.1.* Black poverty 3.044198895027624 times that of whites. This is 6 years before the Civil Rights Act and during legalized segregation. *In 1966, poverty for Blacks was 41.8 percent. For whites it was  11.3 percent.* Black poverty was 3.699115044247788 times that of whites. This is one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed and whites were still trying to figure it out. *In 1975, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 9.7 percent.*  Black poverty 3.22680412371134 times that of whites 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. *In 1985, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 11.4 percent.* Black poverty 2.745614035087719 times that of whites 20 years after the civil rights act was passed. One would think that if a real concerted effort had been made by whites relative to hiring and equal pay this would not be the case.
> 
> *In 2000, Poverty for Blacks was 22.5 percent. For Whites 9.5 percent. *Black poverty was 2.368421052631579 times that of whites 35 years after the Civil Rights Act. In 35 years black poverty was still twice that of whites and had decreased basically by less than a point from 1959. Therefore one can reasonably conclude that either programs and policies designed to lower poverty in the black community did not work, or the necessary effort and emphasis was not placed in trying to do what it takes to lower poverty in the black community so that it is at least comparable to that of whites.
> 
> *In 2014, Poverty for Blacks was 26.2 percent. For Whites 12.7 percent.* 49 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Black poverty was 2.062992125984252 times that of whites. Since 1959 this represents approximately .98 of a percentage point difference. From 1966, It represents approximately a 1.7 percentage decrease in over a 50 year span between blacks and whites. *These numbers are cited from the US Department of the census.*
> 
> In order to reach true equality in a capitalist system all must have equal control of capital, especially in our own communities. *Blacks have an economy of 1.3 trillion dollars*. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are *2.6 million Black-owned business in the United States, compared to 22.6 million white-owned businesses*. *Blacks/African Americans, who make up more than 13% of the U.S. population, only own about 7% of all the businesses in the country, and generate only about 0.5% of total receipts*. Out of those 2.6 million businesses, 95 percent were sole proprietorships with no hired employees. 109,000 of these businesses were able to hire employees. Those businesses hired over 975,000 people.
> 
> *Because of racism by whites,  Americans face internal trade deficits of our own making. *
> 
> Racists are very good at instructing everyone as to the percentage of blacks in the population. And they extrapolate exaggerated numbers about crime, often conflating murder with total crime. But somehow and really it's done on purpose because we are dealing with racists, are other important statistical data is not discussed.
> 
> * Blacks are 13 percent of the American population but have 2.6 percent of the wealth.* This did not happen because of laziness. Indeed, the historical records shows that blacks have consistently worked as hard or harder than whites and for far less money, including over 230 years for free. Equality in a capitalist system means we have 13 percent of the wealth. *We have 1/5 the wealth we should have in proportion to our population.
> 
> Last:*
> 
> A 2013 IPSOS poll showed that a full one third of whites that responded to that poll disagreed with white supremacist groups but held the same views. So many whites talk like they are blind on this matter. Most blacks keep how they feel about this to themselves when around white people. The cost of internalizing this anger shows up in the rate of high blood pressure among blacks.
> *
> *
> _*“Thirty-one percent of Americans polled strongly or somewhat agreed that ‘America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.”*_
> 
> *
> White people are the majority of the U.S. population, totaling about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites are 62.6% of the country's population. *According to this poll, we are looking at potentially *76 million whites that continue to share the views of white supremacists*. These numbers equal approximately 1/5th of the American population at that time. It is safe to say these numbers have not reduced.  In contrast, 0.0046% of Americans were murdered in 2013.
> 
> I was born here boy, and the first amendment tells me if I am displeased with the system, I can air my grievance. So again, if that's not something you cannot tolerate, find another country to live in. Pointing out continuing racism by whites isn't hate. It's called the truth. And I  am retired, so I will do whatever please. So every time I post the truth about white racism, bring what you think you have son. Because I don't mind taking a racist to the woodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.  Everybody bitches at me when I do 10 paragraphs and they go TLDR.
> 
> Son, you are a straight out L*IED AND CONTINUE TO LIE*.  Don't mean to mention it again, but you just got your ass spanked once.  Don't make me pick apart your hate filled horse dung again.
> 
> I haven't called you names; have NOT proclaimed any superiority; don't need to write a freaking book in order to make a point.
> 
> During my lifetime, the blacks have had the United States handed to them on a platter while everyone else (all other races) have had to earn their keep.  My reputation was built on facing people *you WOULD LIKE TO BE LIKE BUT LACK THE BALLS* in public debates.  The fact that the mods don't ban you for name calling is proof to me that because the hue of your skin, you are privileged.  When I see you on tv or radio - or get that PM telling me to name the time and place, then you will remain little more than a keyboard commando, afraid to face anyone on a level playing field and spew that hate filled B.S. you post in every race related thread on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have made city governments end racist policy. YOU, are no match. Whites have been given everything by the government. You can't win a debate with me and now want to whine about name calling. Well the white identity crap you posted about America being founded by whites and the 14th amendment being illegal is against forum rules too. I'm not crying about that like you're whining about being called a name. Furthermore you have called a racist numerous times along with the other stormfront troopers. I hate to break it to you, but that's name calling too. So what I do is shred your arguments with fact. You can't debate me and win with the lunacy you believe. Because what you believe is fake news. It's not 1790 anymore and the courts have ruled, because this never was the white man's land. So as the great philosopher Muddy Waters once said:
> 
> *“You  can’t spend what you ain’t got, and you can’t lose something that you ain’t never had.” *​So come a pickin, because you're nobody. Just another incel white racist behind a keyboard. I have nothing to prove to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much more then racism or racist policies. There are people who may not be liked by their personality. There are people who may have personal issues that people will mess with. And there are more then a few. The government side by your writings is supported by the taxpayers. To you it is an endless amount of resources. There are plenty of people who struggle that are not of your interests. In fact government has gotten very expensive. To the point where people leave once more economical places to live in the region they lived to others that are still viable. Forums like this, are just that. I believe most people that type on forums are just people. People who over bloviate on their soap boxes.Unless they are shills mining for information. Which is something totally different. And that in itself is a form of anti love. Government at some point will be so overextended it may collapse upon itself. Then what will people do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the difference when something isn't racist and when something is. Whites such as yourself should spend more time educating yourselves out of racism then trying to explain to people who have to deal with racism every day what is and isn't racist.
Click to expand...

I am not directing anything. I am tired of paying. The results should be better. You heard of the military/industrial complex. Well we have the poverty/poverty service complex. No one writes about it. Police, firefighters, emt's. paramedics. emergency rooms in hospitals, teachers, dept. of families, EBT, private people with government contracts and so much more. The people workoing in this environment are making out like bandits to the chagrin of the taxpayer who are the modern day slaves. It is incredible how you type up your spewage. If you can do this then orient yourself to improving the way of life for us all. Tomorrow I want an internal combustion engine that gets 100 miles per gallon to start. After all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Your so 1970. Those days are over.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
Click to expand...

Why ? Are you questioning the existence of Affirmative Action ?
  Is this more liberal BS sillieness ?


----------



## protectionist

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son, you ain't spanking nobody. Your racism is apparent. What I have said here I have said to whites directly. The first rule of debate is to state your premise. Telling black people whites are superior and America is the whites mans country will end your life in some places, much less being called a name. Announcing a belief that has been proven wrong, such as yours about the supremacy of whites is not debate.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom. "*
> 
> The founding documents say all men are created equal. That alone renders your commentary to white racist lunacy. The rules of debate say that you present facts and support those facts. My premise is that the root cause of the problem blacks face is white racism I can prove that. You have no rebuttal.
> 
> _" Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:"
> _
> Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> White males are 31 percent of the population but have 54 percent of the jobs.  White males are vastly overrepresented in the workforce. You talk about 1.3 percent, but white men are overrepresented by over 20 percent. Using the same Department of labor chart you cited, as of December 2019, white unemployment was 2.8 percent, nearly 1 point below the national rate. Table A-2.  Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age You see junior, this is where your ass whipping begins. Black unemployment was 5.8 percent. Historically or unemployment rate has been double that of whites, and not, it's not due to lack of education.
> 
> *Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire*
> 
> *Devah Pager*
> *Princeton University*
> 
> Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?
> 
> Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.
> 
> To address these issues, I recently conducted a series of experiments investigating employment discrimination. In these experiments, which took place in Milwaukee and New York City, I hired young men to pose as job applicants, assigning them resumes with equal levels of education and experience, and sending them to apply for real entry-level job openings all over the city.
> 
> Team members also alternated presenting information about a fictitious criminal record (a drug felony), which they “fessed up to” on the application form. During nearly a year of fieldwork, teams of testers audited hundreds of employers, applying for a wide range of entry level jobs such as waiters, sales assistants, laborers, warehouse workers, couriers, and customer service representatives.
> 
> *The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.*
> 
> Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire
> 
> *White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records*
> 
> Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled “Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.”
> 
> In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.
> 
> Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers. It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.
> 
> However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records.
> 
> So, even when a white employer knows that the white applicant she is interviewing is a convict and the black applicant has never been in trouble with the law, she is as likely to hire the white applicant as the black applicant.
> 
> White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI Blog
> 
> Whites have made it at our expense for the entire 243 years of this nations history and 400 years if you include the colony days. For 245 years we built this country didn't get paid for it and whites like you are living off the interest.
> 
> *In 1959 poverty for blacks was 55.1 percent. For whites it was White 18.1.* Black poverty 3.044198895027624 times that of whites. This is 6 years before the Civil Rights Act and during legalized segregation. *In 1966, poverty for Blacks was 41.8 percent. For whites it was  11.3 percent.* Black poverty was 3.699115044247788 times that of whites. This is one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed and whites were still trying to figure it out. *In 1975, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 9.7 percent.*  Black poverty 3.22680412371134 times that of whites 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. *In 1985, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 11.4 percent.* Black poverty 2.745614035087719 times that of whites 20 years after the civil rights act was passed. One would think that if a real concerted effort had been made by whites relative to hiring and equal pay this would not be the case.
> 
> *In 2000, Poverty for Blacks was 22.5 percent. For Whites 9.5 percent. *Black poverty was 2.368421052631579 times that of whites 35 years after the Civil Rights Act. In 35 years black poverty was still twice that of whites and had decreased basically by less than a point from 1959. Therefore one can reasonably conclude that either programs and policies designed to lower poverty in the black community did not work, or the necessary effort and emphasis was not placed in trying to do what it takes to lower poverty in the black community so that it is at least comparable to that of whites.
> 
> *In 2014, Poverty for Blacks was 26.2 percent. For Whites 12.7 percent.* 49 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Black poverty was 2.062992125984252 times that of whites. Since 1959 this represents approximately .98 of a percentage point difference. From 1966, It represents approximately a 1.7 percentage decrease in over a 50 year span between blacks and whites. *These numbers are cited from the US Department of the census.*
> 
> In order to reach true equality in a capitalist system all must have equal control of capital, especially in our own communities. *Blacks have an economy of 1.3 trillion dollars*. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are *2.6 million Black-owned business in the United States, compared to 22.6 million white-owned businesses*. *Blacks/African Americans, who make up more than 13% of the U.S. population, only own about 7% of all the businesses in the country, and generate only about 0.5% of total receipts*. Out of those 2.6 million businesses, 95 percent were sole proprietorships with no hired employees. 109,000 of these businesses were able to hire employees. Those businesses hired over 975,000 people.
> 
> *Because of racism by whites,  Americans face internal trade deficits of our own making. *
> 
> Racists are very good at instructing everyone as to the percentage of blacks in the population. And they extrapolate exaggerated numbers about crime, often conflating murder with total crime. But somehow and really it's done on purpose because we are dealing with racists, are other important statistical data is not discussed.
> 
> * Blacks are 13 percent of the American population but have 2.6 percent of the wealth.* This did not happen because of laziness. Indeed, the historical records shows that blacks have consistently worked as hard or harder than whites and for far less money, including over 230 years for free. Equality in a capitalist system means we have 13 percent of the wealth. *We have 1/5 the wealth we should have in proportion to our population.
> 
> Last:*
> 
> A 2013 IPSOS poll showed that a full one third of whites that responded to that poll disagreed with white supremacist groups but held the same views. So many whites talk like they are blind on this matter. Most blacks keep how they feel about this to themselves when around white people. The cost of internalizing this anger shows up in the rate of high blood pressure among blacks.
> *
> *
> _*“Thirty-one percent of Americans polled strongly or somewhat agreed that ‘America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.”*_
> 
> *
> White people are the majority of the U.S. population, totaling about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites are 62.6% of the country's population. *According to this poll, we are looking at potentially *76 million whites that continue to share the views of white supremacists*. These numbers equal approximately 1/5th of the American population at that time. It is safe to say these numbers have not reduced.  In contrast, 0.0046% of Americans were murdered in 2013.
> 
> I was born here boy, and the first amendment tells me if I am displeased with the system, I can air my grievance. So again, if that's not something you cannot tolerate, find another country to live in. Pointing out continuing racism by whites isn't hate. It's called the truth. And I  am retired, so I will do whatever please. So every time I post the truth about white racism, bring what you think you have son. Because I don't mind taking a racist to the woodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.  Everybody bitches at me when I do 10 paragraphs and they go TLDR.
> 
> Son, you are a straight out L*IED AND CONTINUE TO LIE*.  Don't mean to mention it again, but you just got your ass spanked once.  Don't make me pick apart your hate filled horse dung again.
> 
> I haven't called you names; have NOT proclaimed any superiority; don't need to write a freaking book in order to make a point.
> 
> During my lifetime, the blacks have had the United States handed to them on a platter while everyone else (all other races) have had to earn their keep.  My reputation was built on facing people *you WOULD LIKE TO BE LIKE BUT LACK THE BALLS* in public debates.  The fact that the mods don't ban you for name calling is proof to me that because the hue of your skin, you are privileged.  When I see you on tv or radio - or get that PM telling me to name the time and place, then you will remain little more than a keyboard commando, afraid to face anyone on a level playing field and spew that hate filled B.S. you post in every race related thread on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have made city governments end racist policy. YOU, are no match. Whites have been given everything by the government. You can't win a debate with me and now want to whine about name calling. Well the white identity crap you posted about America being founded by whites and the 14th amendment being illegal is against forum rules too. I'm not crying about that like you're whining about being called a name. Furthermore you have called a racist numerous times along with the other stormfront troopers. I hate to break it to you, but that's name calling too. So what I do is shred your arguments with fact. You can't debate me and win with the lunacy you believe. Because what you believe is fake news. It's not 1790 anymore and the courts have ruled, because this never was the white man's land. So as the great philosopher Muddy Waters once said:
> 
> *“You  can’t spend what you ain’t got, and you can’t lose something that you ain’t never had.” *​So come a pickin, because you're nobody. Just another incel white racist behind a keyboard. I have nothing to prove to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much more then racism or racist policies. There are people who may not be liked by their personality. There are people who may have personal issues that people will mess with. And there are more then a few. The government side by your writings is supported by the taxpayers. To you it is an endless amount of resources. There are plenty of people who struggle that are not of your interests. In fact government has gotten very expensive. To the point where people leave once more economical places to live in the region they lived to others that are still viable. Forums like this, are just that. I believe most people that type on forums are just people. People who over bloviate on their soap boxes.Unless they are shills mining for information. Which is something totally different. And that in itself is a form of anti love. Government at some point will be so overextended it may collapse upon itself. Then what will people do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the difference when something isn't racist and when something is. Whites such as yourself should spend more time educating yourselves out of racism then trying to explain to people who have to deal with racism every day what is and isn't racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am not directing anything. I am tired of paying. The results should be better. You heard of the military/industrial complex. Well we have the poverty/poverty service complex. No one writes about it. Police, firefighters, emt's. paramedics. emergency rooms in hospitals, teachers, dept. of families, EBT, private people with government contracts and so much more. The people workoing in this environment are making out like bandits to the chagrin of the taxpayer who are the modern day slaves. It is incredible how you type up your spewage. If you can do this then orient yourself to improving the way of life for us all. Tomorrow I want an internal combustion engine that gets 100 miles per gallon to start. After all, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Your so 1970. Those days are over.
Click to expand...

Public television constantly runs old black & white footage of hardships to blacks from Jim Crow days in the 50s.

The idea is to keep blacks mad and paranoid, even though those days are long gone, and have long been replaced where blacks have good jobs and are happy.

They wouldn't dare televise the 2020 interior of a VA hospital showing hundreds of employees, 90% of them black, Indian, or Hispanic, and the remaining 10% white women.

Gosh, someone might bring up the subject of Affirmative Action, if they did that .


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I* know* why those words were written and apparently you do not. You are conflating *unalienable *Rights with citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing.  I asked you a question and instead of answering it you went off on a tangent apparently to distract from the contradictions in your assertions and beliefs.
> 
> And while I am aware of the difference between unalienable rights and citizenship which for people of African descent required the passage of the 13th amendment and then the 14th amendmend due to the Dred Scot decision to rectify the damage done, that still doesn't provide an answer as to why several centuries of racial discrimination was no big deal to white racists yet a little over 50 years of whites losing their corner on the job market invokes such painful cries of "unfair".
> 
> Whites are not getting "screwed" out of jobs if for no other reason than they were never entitled to 100% of the job opportunities in the first place.  Loss of preferential treatment may feel like discrimination but it's not.
Click to expand...

Nonsense!  Of course it's discrimination.  Anytime you pick people for jobs, promotions, financial aid, etc, based on skin color, it's racial (illegal & immoral) discrimination.  It's wrong, and you know it.

If you had an ounce of decency, you'd stand up straight & tall and admit that it's wrong.  You don't, only because this indecency favors you.

You are like a thief whose only criteria is what's in it for him.  Total dishonor.


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is inac
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
Click to expand...


Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population. 

Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.

Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
Click to expand...



There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific. 

The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
Click to expand...

He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I* know* why those words were written and apparently you do not. You are conflating *unalienable *Rights with citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing.  I asked you a question and instead of answering it you went off on a tangent apparently to distract from the contradictions in your assertions and beliefs.
> 
> And while I am aware of the difference between unalienable rights and citizenship which for people of African descent required the passage of the 13th amendment and then the 14th amendmend due to the Dred Scot decision to rectify the damage done, that still doesn't provide an answer as to why several centuries of racial discrimination was no big deal to white racists yet a little over 50 years of whites losing their corner on the job market invokes such painful cries of "unfair".
> 
> Whites are not getting "screwed" out of jobs if for no other reason than they were never entitled to 100% of the job opportunities in the first place.  Loss of preferential treatment may feel like discrimination but it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense!  Of course it's discrimination.  Anytime you pick people for jobs, promotions, financial aid, etc, based on skin color, it's racial (illegal & immoral) discrimination.  It's wrong, and you know it.
> 
> If you had an ounce of decency, you'd stand up straight & tall and admit that it's wrong.  You don't, only because this indecency favors you.
> 
> You are like a thief whose only criteria is what's in it for him.  Total dishonor.
Click to expand...


----------



## miketx

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I* know* why those words were written and apparently you do not. You are conflating *unalienable *Rights with citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing.  I asked you a question and instead of answering it you went off on a tangent apparently to distract from the contradictions in your assertions and beliefs.
> 
> And while I am aware of the difference between unalienable rights and citizenship which for people of African descent required the passage of the 13th amendment and then the 14th amendmend due to the Dred Scot decision to rectify the damage done, that still doesn't provide an answer as to why several centuries of racial discrimination was no big deal to white racists yet a little over 50 years of whites losing their corner on the job market invokes such painful cries of "unfair".
> 
> Whites are not getting "screwed" out of jobs if for no other reason than they were never entitled to 100% of the job opportunities in the first place.  Loss of preferential treatment may feel like discrimination but it's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense!  Of course it's discrimination.  Anytime you pick people for jobs, promotions, financial aid, etc, based on skin color, it's racial (illegal & immoral) discrimination.  It's wrong, and you know it.
> 
> If you had an ounce of decency, you'd stand up straight & tall and admit that it's wrong.  You don't, only because this indecency favors you.
> 
> You are like a thief whose only criteria is what's in it for him.  Total dishonor.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I don't use it much but I think it's past time to put this racist ****** on ignore.


----------



## miketx

cnm said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
Click to expand...

That's all you filth do is spread lies and hatred. hatemonger is your name.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  A
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]


IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
Click to expand...





IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
Click to expand...


That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".

After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I* know* why those words were written and apparently you do not. You are conflating *unalienable *Rights with citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> I am doing no such thing.  I asked you a question and instead of answering it you went off on a tangent apparently to distract from the contradictions in your assertions and beliefs.
> 
> And while I am aware of the difference between unalienable rights and citizenship which for people of African descent required the passage of the 13th amendment and then the 14th amendmend due to the Dred Scot decision to rectify the damage done, that still doesn't provide an answer as to why several centuries of racial discrimination was no big deal to white racists yet a little over 50 years of whites losing their corner on the job market invokes such painful cries of "unfair".
> 
> Whites are not getting "screwed" out of jobs if for no other reason than they were never entitled to 100% of the job opportunities in the first place.  Loss of preferential treatment may feel like discrimination but it's not.
Click to expand...


I did not unfairly unload on you.  And, maybe if you read the actual majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sanford, you could save yourself a Hell of a lot arguing time figuring out that you are wrong on so many levels.  Read the majority opinion by Roger Taney.  He will explain why you are in error.

The 14th Amendment did NOT make you equal.  The 14th Amendment was illegally passed just to nullify *unalienable* Rights.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son, you ain't spanking nobody. Your racism is apparent. What I have said here I have said to whites directly. The first rule of debate is to state your premise. Telling black people whites are superior and America is the whites mans country will end your life in some places, much less being called a name. Announcing a belief that has been proven wrong, such as yours about the supremacy of whites is not debate.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom. "*
> 
> The founding documents say all men are created equal. That alone renders your commentary to white racist lunacy. The rules of debate say that you present facts and support those facts. My premise is that the root cause of the problem blacks face is white racism I can prove that. You have no rebuttal.
> 
> _" Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:"
> _
> Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> White males are 31 percent of the population but have 54 percent of the jobs.  White males are vastly overrepresented in the workforce. You talk about 1.3 percent, but white men are overrepresented by over 20 percent. Using the same Department of labor chart you cited, as of December 2019, white unemployment was 2.8 percent, nearly 1 point below the national rate. Table A-2.  Employment status of the civilian population by race, sex, and age You see junior, this is where your ass whipping begins. Black unemployment was 5.8 percent. Historically or unemployment rate has been double that of whites, and not, it's not due to lack of education.
> 
> *Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire*
> 
> *Devah Pager*
> *Princeton University*
> 
> Is racial discrimination a thing of the past?
> 
> Debates about the relevance of discrimination in today's society have been difficult to resolve, in part because of the challenges in identifying, measuring, and documenting its presence or absence in all but extreme cases. Discrimination is rarely something that can be observed explicitly.
> 
> To address these issues, I recently conducted a series of experiments investigating employment discrimination. In these experiments, which took place in Milwaukee and New York City, I hired young men to pose as job applicants, assigning them resumes with equal levels of education and experience, and sending them to apply for real entry-level job openings all over the city.
> 
> Team members also alternated presenting information about a fictitious criminal record (a drug felony), which they “fessed up to” on the application form. During nearly a year of fieldwork, teams of testers audited hundreds of employers, applying for a wide range of entry level jobs such as waiters, sales assistants, laborers, warehouse workers, couriers, and customer service representatives.
> 
> *The results of these studies were startling. Among those with no criminal record, white applicants were more than twice as likely to receive a callback relative to equally qualified black applicants. Even more troubling, whites with a felony conviction fared just as well, if not better, than a black applicant with a clean background.*
> 
> Study: Black man and white felon – same chances for hire
> 
> *White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records*
> 
> Anyone claiming that racism is no longer alive and well in the United States, in addition to considering the race-driven circumstances surrounding the Jena 6, or statistics demonstrating that prosecutors are far more likely to seek the death penalty when the victim is white than when the victim is black (particularly if the defendant is black), or studies demonstrating that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites for equivalent drug crimes, or the fact that even though more whites per capita smoke marihuana than blacks, blacks are arrested and prosecuted at a far higher rate, should read a recent study by Princeton University examining employment discrimination titled “Discrimination in Low Wage Labor Markets.”
> 
> In the largest and most comprehensive project of its kind to date, 13 young male applicants, presenting the same qualifications and experience, split into teams and went on nearly 3,500 entry-level job interviews with private companies in supposedly left-leaning, "progressive", multicultural New York City, jobs ranging from restaurants to manufacturing to financial services. After recording which applicants were invited back for interviews or were offered jobs, two sociology professors looked at the hiring practices of 1,500 prospective private employers, focusing specifically on discrimination against young male minorities and ex-offenders.
> 
> Some of the study's findings are depressingly familiar. For instance, young white high school graduates were twice as likely to receive positive responses from New York employers as equally qualified black job seekers. It also reaffirmed not only that former prisoners are at a distinct disadvantage in the job market, but also that, again, black ex-prisoners are in a much worse position: positive responses from employers towards white applicants with a criminal record dipped 35 percent, while for black applicants similarly situated it plummeted 57 percent.
> 
> However, the study revealed that our society's racism extends even deeper: black applicants with no criminal record were no more likely to get a job than white applicants with criminal records just released from prison! In other words, while whites with criminal records received low rates of positive responses, such response rates were equally low for blacks without a criminal background. Further exposing the overt racism at play was the study's finding that minority employers were more accepting of minority applicants and job applicants with prison records.
> 
> So, even when a white employer knows that the white applicant she is interviewing is a convict and the black applicant has never been in trouble with the law, she is as likely to hire the white applicant as the black applicant.
> 
> White Convicts As Likely to Be Hired As Blacks Without Criminal Records | DMI Blog
> 
> Whites have made it at our expense for the entire 243 years of this nations history and 400 years if you include the colony days. For 245 years we built this country didn't get paid for it and whites like you are living off the interest.
> 
> *In 1959 poverty for blacks was 55.1 percent. For whites it was White 18.1.* Black poverty 3.044198895027624 times that of whites. This is 6 years before the Civil Rights Act and during legalized segregation. *In 1966, poverty for Blacks was 41.8 percent. For whites it was  11.3 percent.* Black poverty was 3.699115044247788 times that of whites. This is one year after the Civil Rights Act was passed and whites were still trying to figure it out. *In 1975, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 9.7 percent.*  Black poverty 3.22680412371134 times that of whites 10 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed. *In 1985, poverty for Blacks was 31.3 percent. For Whites 11.4 percent.* Black poverty 2.745614035087719 times that of whites 20 years after the civil rights act was passed. One would think that if a real concerted effort had been made by whites relative to hiring and equal pay this would not be the case.
> 
> *In 2000, Poverty for Blacks was 22.5 percent. For Whites 9.5 percent. *Black poverty was 2.368421052631579 times that of whites 35 years after the Civil Rights Act. In 35 years black poverty was still twice that of whites and had decreased basically by less than a point from 1959. Therefore one can reasonably conclude that either programs and policies designed to lower poverty in the black community did not work, or the necessary effort and emphasis was not placed in trying to do what it takes to lower poverty in the black community so that it is at least comparable to that of whites.
> 
> *In 2014, Poverty for Blacks was 26.2 percent. For Whites 12.7 percent.* 49 years after the Civil Rights Act was passed, Black poverty was 2.062992125984252 times that of whites. Since 1959 this represents approximately .98 of a percentage point difference. From 1966, It represents approximately a 1.7 percentage decrease in over a 50 year span between blacks and whites. *These numbers are cited from the US Department of the census.*
> 
> In order to reach true equality in a capitalist system all must have equal control of capital, especially in our own communities. *Blacks have an economy of 1.3 trillion dollars*. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, there are *2.6 million Black-owned business in the United States, compared to 22.6 million white-owned businesses*. *Blacks/African Americans, who make up more than 13% of the U.S. population, only own about 7% of all the businesses in the country, and generate only about 0.5% of total receipts*. Out of those 2.6 million businesses, 95 percent were sole proprietorships with no hired employees. 109,000 of these businesses were able to hire employees. Those businesses hired over 975,000 people.
> 
> *Because of racism by whites,  Americans face internal trade deficits of our own making. *
> 
> Racists are very good at instructing everyone as to the percentage of blacks in the population. And they extrapolate exaggerated numbers about crime, often conflating murder with total crime. But somehow and really it's done on purpose because we are dealing with racists, are other important statistical data is not discussed.
> 
> * Blacks are 13 percent of the American population but have 2.6 percent of the wealth.* This did not happen because of laziness. Indeed, the historical records shows that blacks have consistently worked as hard or harder than whites and for far less money, including over 230 years for free. Equality in a capitalist system means we have 13 percent of the wealth. *We have 1/5 the wealth we should have in proportion to our population.
> 
> Last:*
> 
> A 2013 IPSOS poll showed that a full one third of whites that responded to that poll disagreed with white supremacist groups but held the same views. So many whites talk like they are blind on this matter. Most blacks keep how they feel about this to themselves when around white people. The cost of internalizing this anger shows up in the rate of high blood pressure among blacks.
> *
> *
> _*“Thirty-one percent of Americans polled strongly or somewhat agreed that ‘America must protect and preserve its White European heritage.”*_
> 
> *
> White people are the majority of the U.S. population, totaling about 245,532,000 or 77.7% of the population as of 2013. Non-Hispanic whites are 62.6% of the country's population. *According to this poll, we are looking at potentially *76 million whites that continue to share the views of white supremacists*. These numbers equal approximately 1/5th of the American population at that time. It is safe to say these numbers have not reduced.  In contrast, 0.0046% of Americans were murdered in 2013.
> 
> I was born here boy, and the first amendment tells me if I am displeased with the system, I can air my grievance. So again, if that's not something you cannot tolerate, find another country to live in. Pointing out continuing racism by whites isn't hate. It's called the truth. And I  am retired, so I will do whatever please. So every time I post the truth about white racism, bring what you think you have son. Because I don't mind taking a racist to the woodshed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.  Everybody bitches at me when I do 10 paragraphs and they go TLDR.
> 
> Son, you are a straight out L*IED AND CONTINUE TO LIE*.  Don't mean to mention it again, but you just got your ass spanked once.  Don't make me pick apart your hate filled horse dung again.
> 
> I haven't called you names; have NOT proclaimed any superiority; don't need to write a freaking book in order to make a point.
> 
> During my lifetime, the blacks have had the United States handed to them on a platter while everyone else (all other races) have had to earn their keep.  My reputation was built on facing people *you WOULD LIKE TO BE LIKE BUT LACK THE BALLS* in public debates.  The fact that the mods don't ban you for name calling is proof to me that because the hue of your skin, you are privileged.  When I see you on tv or radio - or get that PM telling me to name the time and place, then you will remain little more than a keyboard commando, afraid to face anyone on a level playing field and spew that hate filled B.S. you post in every race related thread on USM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Junior, I have made city governments end racist policy. YOU, are no match. Whites have been given everything by the government. You can't win a debate with me and now want to whine about name calling. Well the white identity crap you posted about America being founded by whites and the 14th amendment being illegal is against forum rules too. I'm not crying about that like you're whining about being called a name. Furthermore you have called a racist numerous times along with the other stormfront troopers. I hate to break it to you, but that's name calling too. So what I do is shred your arguments with fact. You can't debate me and win with the lunacy you believe. Because what you believe is fake news. It's not 1790 anymore and the courts have ruled, because this never was the white man's land. So as the great philosopher Muddy Waters once said:
> 
> *“You  can’t spend what you ain’t got, and you can’t lose something that you ain’t never had.” *​So come a pickin, because you're nobody. Just another incel white racist behind a keyboard. I have nothing to prove to you. I've done my share of debating, and you've debated no one of consequence. You would get annihilated by the likes of Dr. Dyson, Dr. Carol Anderson, Lani Guinier, Cornell West, and I wish Dr. Cress-Welsing was still here with us. Tim Wise would make you retire. You have not bought that "this country was founded for whites" mess anywhere but to alt right media.
> 
> I'm nearly 59 years old son. I had my days of kicking racist whites asses on the street. I won't be fighting like that now. At this time, I sit on a committee  fighting the police. That's how I fight now. Beating a racists ass on the street makes me end up as another statistic a sorry racist bum like you will use to claim black violence. So I work in coalitions of like minded people interested in change. And while you live out In Utah calling yourself Porter Rockwell, you'd never walk up to a black mans face and tell him America is only for whites and if he didn't like it, you got some ticket to Africa for him. Your life would change drastically after you made such a comment.
> 
> But I have stood in front of mayors, US congressional and senate reps and actually 2 presidential candidates and have said most of the things I have said to you today. When you stand for right, there is nothing to fear. You would not know anything about that.
Click to expand...


Dumbassery!  I debated Hosea Williams on his own tv show and he lost so badly that his program was dropped the next season.  You know, Hosea Williams... the town drunk that was MLK's right hand man.  YOU are nowhere near my league, sonny.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

cnm said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
Click to expand...


I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  A
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
Click to expand...





IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
Click to expand...


That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".

After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.[/QUOTE]

What does the history of this country at the time tell you about the relations between Hispanics and the early colonists and settlers?


----------



## Hellbilly

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
Click to expand...


It is not welcomed.

It is tolerated.

None of the righties ever debate anything he says. All they do is accuse him of being a racist.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
Click to expand...

Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.

They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.

Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.

Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.


----------



## katsteve2012

Porter Rockwell said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  A
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".
> 
> After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.
Click to expand...


What does the history of this country at the time tell you about the relations between Hispanics and the early colonists and settlers?[/QUOTE]

Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.


----------



## protectionist

Billyboom said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not welcomed.
> 
> It is tolerated.
> 
> None of the righties ever debate anything he says. All they do is accuse him of being a racist.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

That's not true.  There plenty of debate. And yes of course IM2 is a racist.  Who in this forum doesn't know that ?


----------



## Vastator

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


If white supremacy is the belief in the superiority of white peoples, nations, and cultures... Given the crashing of the gates of non-whites demanding entrance, and acceptance into white nations, and cultures; who are the "real" white supremacists..?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  A
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the  ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".
> 
> After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
Click to expand...



What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.

This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.

We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
Click to expand...


However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.

Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  A
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, you've have written volumes of books about how much you hate the white race.  You've said things about them that you dare not say to the face of any white man.  You're always here instead of fighting your battles in the streets and in face to face confrontations.
> 
> You called me a white supremacist, a racist and worse just because I dared disagree with you.  So, I'd say it takes one to know one.  It doesn't matter to me what you call me.  The bigotry, hatred, and intolerance you have for whites disqualifies you from having any credibility on the issue.  Let's look at the *FACTS*:
> 
> _"Almost 47 percent of U.S. workers are women."_
> 
> 12 Stats About Working Women | U.S. Department of Labor Blog
> 
> According to Uncle Scam:
> 
> *"Blacks’ labor force growth outpaced their population growth in the 1976–86 and 1986–96 decades*_, leveling off and slowing after that. This group’s annual growth rates in both population and the labor force are projected to be slower over the 2016–26 decade than over the four previous decades_."
> 
> _Although Blacks’ labor force growth rate is not as rapid as in past decades, *their share of the labor force has increased: from 9.9 percent in 1976 to 12.3 percent in 2016*_."
> 
> Blacks in the labor force : Career Outlook: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Blacks hold *12.3 *percent of the jobs and make up *13.6* percent of the population.  Your bitch is that whites have* 70* percent of the jobs, but Uncle Scam says we make up* 76.5* percent of the population.  Other races figure into the equation as well:
> 
> U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States
> 
> So, while blacks are underrepresented in the workforce by *1.3* percent, the whites are underrepresented in the workforce by* 6.5* percent - using your figure.  And, numerically we are the majority in the U.S.  Sooo.. our percentages represent more people per percent than blacks.
> 
> As far as entitlement, like a lot of whites, while your race was advancing at the expense of whites, many of us were locked out of the job market.  That's a fact that calling me names won't change.  I suppose you'd like to challenge Uncle Scam's figures???
> 
> *NOBODY* owes me a job.  I believe that the employer has the Right to hire whomever in the Hell they want.  It's their money, their investment, and the statistics are showing that blacks are getting the jobs at the expense of white workers.  The blacks get favored because they have more political clout.
> 
> Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race.  You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal.  Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture.  There is an unwritten rule that the first person to begin name calling in a debate loses.  In the instant case that would be you.  You lie, waste your life hating whites, and post divisive posts all day long.  If not for that level of hate, you'd die of boredom.
> 
> You pick the country you think that will give you more than America did.  I'll buy you a one way ticket, first class to go there if you promise to never come back here again.  Otherwise, every time you call me out, you're going to get spanked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".
> 
> After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
Click to expand...


 He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.

And WTF do you mean "WE"?

Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
Click to expand...

Nobody needs to prove what everyone knows.  Wanna give us proof that fire is hot ? That fish can swim ?  Got any proof ?  You damn fool.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> 
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just one question regarding your statistics. You stated that the government, "Uncle Scam"...(good one), states that the white population is 76% of the population.
> 
> Every census number that I have read lists "non Hispanic whites" at about 61% of the U.S. population.
> 
> Were you including Hispanic whites in your number?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".
> 
> After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
Click to expand...

Yeah ? Like where ?  What page ? Tres ?  Siete ?  Nueve ? Diez ?

And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being there.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
Click to expand...

Like most conservatives, I regard what liberals consider fact sources, as laughingstocks.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He will include Hispanic whites in this argument, then claim that Hispanics are counted with whites when it comes to talking about high white crime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".
> 
> After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
Click to expand...


Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.

As for your quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".
> 
> After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
Click to expand...

Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> That percentage does appear to fluctuate in this forum depending on what the topic of discussion is. What I would like to understand is if those who still believe that the country was" founded by whites for whites", does that include  Hispanic whites in that "vision of Utopia".
> 
> After all, aren't most predominantly Hispanic and latin countries "shitholes" and their inhabitants rapists and criminals"?.......lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for your quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
Click to expand...

Then you have no business being in that thread, so stay out of it, coward.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
Click to expand...


"Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.

You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for your quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you have no business being in that thread, so stay out of it, coward.
Click to expand...


It's a public forum, screwball.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like most conservatives, I regard what liberals consider fact sources, as laughingstocks.
Click to expand...


Then pick a source that you consider to be credible. And your opinion/whining  does not count



protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to prove what everyone knows.  Wanna give us proof that fire is hot ? That fish can swim ?  Got any proof ?  You damn fool.
Click to expand...


You have not proven anything here except your lacking of any logical thought.

That is at least one fact in your favor....crazy person.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
Click to expand...

See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?

Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.

37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?

New polls show black support for Trump surging

Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like most conservatives, I regard what liberals consider fact sources, as laughingstocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then pick a source that you consider to be credible. And your opinion/whining  does not count
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to prove what everyone knows.  Wanna give us proof that fire is hot ? That fish can swim ?  Got any proof ?  You damn fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything here except your lacking of any logical thought.
> 
> That is at least one fact in your favor....crazy person.
Click to expand...

I hope this doesn't give you liberal constipation, but most things in life don't require your sanctimonious "source".

Is water wet ?  Are mountains tall ? Do mosquitos bite ? Do AA questionnaires cite race ? Duh!


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
Click to expand...


These are your words.

*"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*

You are a white supremacist.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
Click to expand...


This is a classic example of a right wing lie.

November 20, 2019
*Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
*
"Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*

Analyzing Black Support for President Trump

Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Billyboom said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not welcomed.
> 
> It is tolerated.
> 
> None of the righties ever debate anything he says. All they do is accuse him of being a racist.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...


IM2 might get a debate if he'd quit writing a damn book in every post and actually debate something.  Twelve paragraphs are sufficient for any post.  Beyond that, NOBODY reads the post.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> 
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like most conservatives, I regard what liberals consider fact sources, as laughingstocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then pick a source that you consider to be credible. And your opinion/whining  does not count
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to prove what everyone knows.  Wanna give us proof that fire is hot ? That fish can swim ?  Got any proof ?  You damn fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything here except your lacking of any logical thought.
> 
> That is at least one fact in your favor....crazy person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this doesn't give you liberal constipation, but most things in life don't require your sanctimonious "source".
> 
> Is water wet ?  Are mountains tall ? Do mosquitos bite ? Do AA questionnaires cite race ? Duh!
Click to expand...


I hope this doesn't give you right wing constipation, but things in life aren't validated by your sanctimonious opinion. You do need sources to back this claim.

And white is a race.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
Click to expand...


I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not welcomed.
> 
> It is tolerated.
> 
> None of the righties ever debate anything he says. All they do is accuse him of being a racist.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IM2 might get a debate if he'd quit writing a damn book in every post and actually debate something.  Twelve paragraphs are sufficient for any post.  Beyond that, NOBODY reads the post.
Click to expand...


You talked about facts. I posted the facts. In a debate you use facts to back up your premise. That is what I did. You don't want to face the facts and are making excuses as to why you cannot defend your position.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
Click to expand...


I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.

I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.

Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like most conservatives, I regard what liberals consider fact sources, as laughingstocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then pick a source that you consider to be credible. And your opinion/whining  does not count
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to prove what everyone knows.  Wanna give us proof that fire is hot ? That fish can swim ?  Got any proof ?  You damn fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything here except your lacking of any logical thought.
> 
> That is at least one fact in your favor....crazy person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this doesn't give you liberal constipation, but most things in life don't require your sanctimonious "source".
> 
> Is water wet ?  Are mountains tall ? Do mosquitos bite ? Do AA questionnaires cite race ? Duh!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hope this doesn't give you right wing constipation, but things in life aren't validated by your sanctimonious opinion. You do need sources to back this claim.
> 
> And white is a race.
Click to expand...

I hope this doesn't give you liberal diahreaa, but many things are fact and don't need a source .  I gave a few examples.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
Click to expand...

No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.


----------



## MaryL

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


It died a long time ago. SHHHH! Don't tell the liberals, or they wont have any strawmen to knock about and bully.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA. Get a brain.



Actually most black republicans agree with AA. The few black republicans who oppose AA are exploited by the right wing  media in order to fit your racist agenda.

*Condoleezza Rice: Affirmative Action Is Still Necessary  *


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of a right wing lie.
> 
> November 20, 2019
> *Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
> *
> "Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*
> 
> Analyzing Black Support for President Trump
> 
> Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.
Click to expand...

Gallup is just another mainstream media poll that is generally inaccurate, because being MSM, it is ignored by Republicans, and gets a disproportionate % of overwhelming leftist responses.

Information-deprived liberals didn't know this in 2016, and reading the inaccurate msm polls, were "sure" Hillary was going to win the next day.

Rasmussen is more accurate, because it is one of the few polls that Republicans trust (including blacks,) and do respond to it, in addition to Democrats.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
Click to expand...


That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of a right wing lie.
> 
> November 20, 2019
> *Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
> *
> "Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*
> 
> Analyzing Black Support for President Trump
> 
> Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gallup is just another mainstream media poll that is generally inaccurate, because being MSM, it is ignored by Republicans, and gets a disproportionate % of overwhelming leftist responses.
> 
> Information-deprived liberals didn't know this in 2016, and reading the inaccurate msm polls, were "sure" Hillary was going to win the next day.
> 
> Rasmussen is more accurate, because it is one of the few polls that Republicans trust (including blacks,) and do respond to it, in addition to Democrats.
Click to expand...


This isn't 2016, you don't want to talk about voter suppression, Hillary did win the popular vote as the polls predicted, Gallup is the best in the business, I am black and know what black people think of trump. I am a member of a majority black forum that's just as big as this one and there isn't much support for trump there.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
Click to expand...

This is a perfect example of the black supremacist racist point of view.

According to IM2, when race is used favoring whites, to determine job hiring, that is racism.

But when race is used favoring blacks (as in AA), he calls that "not racism"

So like all black (and white liberal) racists, he's OK with racial discrimination, as long as blacks are the beneficiaries, and whites are the victims.

And don't try to tell me that white women line again, I already shredded it.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of a right wing lie.
> 
> November 20, 2019
> *Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
> *
> "Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*
> 
> Analyzing Black Support for President Trump
> 
> Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gallup is just another mainstream media poll that is generally inaccurate, because being MSM, it is ignored by Republicans, and gets a disproportionate % of overwhelming leftist responses.
> 
> Information-deprived liberals didn't know this in 2016, and reading the inaccurate msm polls, were "sure" Hillary was going to win the next day.
> 
> Rasmussen is more accurate, because it is one of the few polls that Republicans trust (including blacks,) and do respond to it, in addition to Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't 2016, you don't want to talk about voter suppression, Hillary did win the popular vote as the polls predicted, Gallup is the best in the business, I am black and know what black people think of trump. I am a member of a majority black forum that's just as big as this one and there isn't much support for trump there.
Click to expand...

So it's an anti-Trump forum.  Big deal. So is political hotwire and many others.  Whoopee.

You can praise Gallup all you want, but it's just another MSM left poll, as 2016 showed.

Voter suppression ?  There needs to be much more to stop illegal aliens from voting.  Proof of citizenship needs to be required, to prevent illegitimate vote counts, as in 2016.  Despite all Hillary's illegals, she still lost.
And there is no honor in winning a popular vote that includes millions of Democrat illegals.  Trump won the AMERICAN popular vote, big-time.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not welcomed.
> 
> It is tolerated.
> 
> None of the righties ever debate anything he says. All they do is accuse him of being a racist.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IM2 might get a debate if he'd quit writing a damn book in every post and actually debate something.  Twelve paragraphs are sufficient for any post.  Beyond that, NOBODY reads the post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talked about facts. I posted the facts. In a debate you use facts to back up your premise. That is what I did. You don't want to face the facts and are making excuses as to why you cannot defend your position.
Click to expand...


You *claimed* you used facts.  You got your ass handed to you and you came back with chickenshit name calling.  Then you post a hundred paragraphs of gibberish.  Mindless stupidity!!!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
Click to expand...


You're the one taking a spanking.  And I don't need  150 paragraphs to do it in either.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a perfect example of the black supremacist racist point of view.
> 
> According to IM2, when race is used favoring whites, to determine job hiring, that is racism.
> 
> But when race is used favoring blacks (as in AA), he calls that "not racism"
> 
> So like all black (and white liberal) racists, he's OK with racial discrimination, as long as blacks are the beneficiaries, and whites are the victims.
> 
> And try to me that white women line again, I already shredded it.
Click to expand...


Despite that IM2 is getting the beat down, he's too ignorant to see it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
Click to expand...


IF AA isn't racism, then neither are segregated schools.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of a right wing lie.
> 
> November 20, 2019
> *Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
> *
> "Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*
> 
> Analyzing Black Support for President Trump
> 
> Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.
Click to expand...

The discussion of the number of Black Republicans came from when katsteve said (lol) that it was a "stretch" to say hundreds of Black Republicans.  He also called that "ludicrous"

By Rasmussen figures of 34% (of 37 million US blacks), that would be 12 MILLION US black Republicans.

Wanna use Gallup's numbers ?  Their 10% calculates to almost 4 MILLION black Republicans.

Only thing "ludicrous" in all this, is katsteve even showing up around here.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF AA isn't racism, then neither are segregated schools.
Click to expand...

But of course, both are racism.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a perfect example of the black supremacist racist point of view.
> 
> According to IM2, when race is used favoring whites, to determine job hiring, that is racism.
> 
> But when race is used favoring blacks (as in AA), he calls that "not racism"
> 
> So like all black (and white liberal) racists, he's OK with racial discrimination, as long as blacks are the beneficiaries, and whites are the victims.
> 
> And don'ttry to me that white women line again, I already shredded it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite that IM2 is getting the beat down, he's too ignorant to see it.
Click to expand...

Par for the course.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a black supremacist, racist pig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, someone who was crying and calling the police because his feelings were hurt when a poster here called him a dumbass, should not be calling anyone else names.
> 
> How well do you think that's going to play in your poor pitiful me elder abuse case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A lot better than your grade in the Quiz for Liberals, that you punked out of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A zero for a quiz I didn't take huh lol?
> 
> In my world a zero means "success".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Zero means total failure.  Yes a zero for dodging the quiz
> When I was in school if you deliberately failed to take a test, you got a zero.  Nothing's changed
> 
> Now admit that you just have no clue who those people in the quiz are.
Click to expand...

"By default, the successful execution of a stored *procedure* will *return* 0"


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

White supremacy is the exact opposite of what is normal and acceptable IMO. No race, creed, or nationality is superior to any other. I can’t believe the OP is anything else than an attempt to piss everyone off. I don’t group myself in with any fringe,cult or criminal group. And it’s offensive to ever have anyone remotely think it. Stereotype is just that, and have some reality with all cultures. Judgement should not be by externals, but by intrinsic worth. Any group of people that want to rule or dictate what others can think or do, should themselves be incarcerated. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

IM2 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
Click to expand...


When you group all whites together. You despise white people, and everyone knows it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why ? Are you questioning the existence of Affirmative Action ?
> Is this more liberal BS sillieness ?
Click to expand...

You made a statement that I am 99.9% sure is false however I could be wrong and will admit to having been wrong if you post the statute, policy & verbiage that proves your statement of "Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)"


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
Click to expand...

Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF AA isn't racism, then neither are segregated schools.
Click to expand...

AA isn't racism. Segregated schools is. Whites are a race and whites have benefited the most from the policy.
No more of your opinion. Produce numeric evidence of how AA has had an adverse impact on whites. None of this anecdotal garbage, show reductions in white income, wealth, education and employment since AA was ordered. Then show the provision in the executive order where it states AA is specifically ordered only for blacks.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
Click to expand...


He thinks his racist comments is an unspoken truth whites have been scared to speak because of political correctness. I've seen this before here, it was from a poster named Humone. He made a series of posts claiming that was something that was needed to be said.

Check this out:
_ 
*THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2*

“When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. *Virtually every early state constitution* had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.”

“For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.”

“Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:”

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of *Liberty* to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)”

Then there was this in the Constitution:

"Article I, Section. 2 
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"

“3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?
 
I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:
The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality


“Today, we find ourselves in very precarious predicament. The Preamble of the Constitution states, unequivocally, *WHO* that document pertains to along with the first Naturalization laws saying that in order to become a citizen, one had to be a white person of good character. That is all fact. Then history records that the Dred Scott decision confirming that inspired the Republicans to pass the 14th Amendment... which was done illegally:”

*“IF* the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified, then the black people who are claiming citizenship are no more "citizens" than migrant worker who slid under the wall from Mexico.”

_Rockwell has said the same thing, and like Humone wants to debate this because he believes it's true and that it is not racist.


----------



## IM2

Butch_Coolidge said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you group all whites together. You despise white people, and everyone knows it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> *Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.*



Whites have practiced racism and the laws and policies that are based on racism benefit all whites. So fuck your whining because I am not going to say not all whites every time I talk about racism.


----------



## MizMolly

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
Click to expand...

There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
Click to expand...


Did you read the first two posts in the OP?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thinks his racist comments is an unspoken truth whites have been scared to speak because of political correctness. I've seen this before here, it was from a poster named Humone. He made a series of posts claiming that was something that was needed to be said.
> 
> Check this out:
> _
> *THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2*
> 
> “When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. *Virtually every early state constitution* had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.”
> 
> “For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.”
> 
> “Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:”
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of *Liberty* to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)”
> 
> Then there was this in the Constitution:
> 
> "Article I, Section. 2
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
> 
> “3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?
> 
> I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:
> The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality
> 
> 
> “Today, we find ourselves in very precarious predicament. The Preamble of the Constitution states, unequivocally, *WHO* that document pertains to along with the first Naturalization laws saying that in order to become a citizen, one had to be a white person of good character. That is all fact. Then history records that the Dred Scott decision confirming that inspired the Republicans to pass the 14th Amendment... which was done illegally:”
> 
> *“IF* the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified, then the black people who are claiming citizenship are no more "citizens" than migrant worker who slid under the wall from Mexico.”
> 
> _Rockwell has said the same thing, and like Humone wants to debate this because he believes it's true and that it is not racist.
Click to expand...



Quite frankly, I don't care whether you "_debate_" it or not.  BTW, it appears that guy stole some of my thunder.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
Click to expand...

Answering those EEOC questions is *voluntary*, as far as I know it's never been a requirement to answer them.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thinks his racist comments is an unspoken truth whites have been scared to speak because of political correctness. I've seen this before here, it was from a poster named Humone. He made a series of posts claiming that was something that was needed to be said.
> 
> Check this out:
> _
> *THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2*
> 
> “When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. *Virtually every early state constitution* had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.”
> 
> “For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.”
> 
> “Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:”
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of *Liberty* to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)”
> 
> Then there was this in the Constitution:
> 
> "Article I, Section. 2
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
> 
> “3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?
> 
> I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:
> The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality
> 
> 
> “Today, we find ourselves in very precarious predicament. The Preamble of the Constitution states, unequivocally, *WHO* that document pertains to along with the first Naturalization laws saying that in order to become a citizen, one had to be a white person of good character. That is all fact. Then history records that the Dred Scott decision confirming that inspired the Republicans to pass the 14th Amendment... which was done illegally:”
> 
> *“IF* the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified, then the black people who are claiming citizenship are no more "citizens" than migrant worker who slid under the wall from Mexico.”
> 
> _Rockwell has said the same thing, and like Humone wants to debate this because he believes it's true and that it is not racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite frankly, I don't care whether you "_debate_" it or not.  BTW, it appears that guy stole some of my thunder.
Click to expand...

That guy was a white supremacist who appears to have been banned. So if he stole some of your thunder that means you're a white supremacist.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course history is not always 100% accurate. However, considering what the aftermath was for Hispanics, not favorable. They were likely regarded as all other non Europeans were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about ? Not favorable ?  Hispanics have good jobs, own homes, drive new cars.  Just walk through any VA hospital, and you'll see many Hispanic doctors, nurses, and technicians.
> 
> This is a lot more conclusive than the hate jibberish they spew on public TV, CNN and other liberal media constantly pushing the poor victimized minority BS line.
> 
> We are doing just fine, you racist jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
Click to expand...

But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.  

You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.

I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thinks his racist comments is an unspoken truth whites have been scared to speak because of political correctness. I've seen this before here, it was from a poster named Humone. He made a series of posts claiming that was something that was needed to be said.
> 
> Check this out:
> _
> *THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2*
> 
> “When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. *Virtually every early state constitution* had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.”
> 
> “For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.”
> 
> “Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:”
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of *Liberty* to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)”
> 
> Then there was this in the Constitution:
> 
> "Article I, Section. 2
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
> 
> “3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?
> 
> I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:
> The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality
> 
> 
> “Today, we find ourselves in very precarious predicament. The Preamble of the Constitution states, unequivocally, *WHO* that document pertains to along with the first Naturalization laws saying that in order to become a citizen, one had to be a white person of good character. That is all fact. Then history records that the Dred Scott decision confirming that inspired the Republicans to pass the 14th Amendment... which was done illegally:”
> 
> *“IF* the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified, then the black people who are claiming citizenship are no more "citizens" than migrant worker who slid under the wall from Mexico.”
> 
> _Rockwell has said the same thing, and like Humone wants to debate this because he believes it's true and that it is not racist.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the background IM2.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thinks his racist comments is an unspoken truth whites have been scared to speak because of political correctness. I've seen this before here, it was from a poster named Humone. He made a series of posts claiming that was something that was needed to be said.
> 
> Check this out:
> _
> *THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2*
> 
> “When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. *Virtually every early state constitution* had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.”
> 
> “For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.”
> 
> “Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:”
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of *Liberty* to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)”
> 
> Then there was this in the Constitution:
> 
> "Article I, Section. 2
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
> 
> “3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?
> 
> I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:
> The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality
> 
> 
> “Today, we find ourselves in very precarious predicament. The Preamble of the Constitution states, unequivocally, *WHO* that document pertains to along with the first Naturalization laws saying that in order to become a citizen, one had to be a white person of good character. That is all fact. Then history records that the Dred Scott decision confirming that inspired the Republicans to pass the 14th Amendment... which was done illegally:”
> 
> *“IF* the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified, then the black people who are claiming citizenship are no more "citizens" than migrant worker who slid under the wall from Mexico.”
> 
> _Rockwell has said the same thing, and like Humone wants to debate this because he believes it's true and that it is not racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for the background IM2.
Click to expand...

No problem.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thinks his racist comments is an unspoken truth whites have been scared to speak because of political correctness. I've seen this before here, it was from a poster named Humone. He made a series of posts claiming that was something that was needed to be said.
> 
> Check this out:
> _
> *THIS IS WHAT NEEDS TO BE SAID PART 2*
> 
> “When America was founded, it was founded on Christian principles, not as a theocracy, but upon Christian principles. *Virtually every early state constitution* had some references to things such as only white Christians being able to vote and / or hold public office. In our first immigration statute, federal law limited citizenship to White persons of good character. And, as such, our race became a part of our culture.”
> 
> “For example, it was Justice Roger Taney, a Democrat, that wrote the ruling in the Dred Scott v Sanford decision that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the United States Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States.”
> 
> “Now, let us be totally honest and realistic. Taney was at least partially right. The Preamble to the Constitution reads:”
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and *secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,* do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
> 
> I bolded that fragment of a sentence to show that the Constitution was designed to secure the blessings of *Liberty* to ourselves (the founders) and our Posterity (meaning their children and their offspring - aka the white race.)”
> 
> Then there was this in the Constitution:
> 
> "Article I, Section. 2
> Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons"
> 
> “3/5th Clause in the Constitution. What is it and why was it put in?
> 
> I'm not going to overwhelm you any single post, but here is the bottom line:
> The whites who came here originally saw themselves as a separate culture, chosen of God, to establish a New Jerusalem. Building on those principles, America became the greatest nation in the annals of history. If you're going to understand the race issue in America it is imperative that you understand this reality
> 
> 
> “Today, we find ourselves in very precarious predicament. The Preamble of the Constitution states, unequivocally, *WHO* that document pertains to along with the first Naturalization laws saying that in order to become a citizen, one had to be a white person of good character. That is all fact. Then history records that the Dred Scott decision confirming that inspired the Republicans to pass the 14th Amendment... which was done illegally:”
> 
> *“IF* the 14th Amendment was not legally ratified, then the black people who are claiming citizenship are no more "citizens" than migrant worker who slid under the wall from Mexico.”
> 
> _Rockwell has said the same thing, and like Humone wants to debate this because he believes it's true and that it is not racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite frankly, I don't care whether you "_debate_" it or not.  BTW, it appears that guy stole some of my thunder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That guy was a white supremacist who appears to have been banned. So if he stole some of your thunder that means you're a white supremacist.
Click to expand...


It's more likely from studying the posts that he is a fellow Georgian who attended or attends the Anglo-Israelite Christian Church.  I find their historical material very useful in this discussion.

I don't care what you call me.  That is the problem you have.  If you want to call me a white supremacist, I fully support your Right to do so.  Fact is, I will fight to the death for your Right to say so.

At the same time, when you make allegations, there are consequences.  *IF* (and you and I don't know what the ban was over), but, *IF* that guy got axed for being a "_white supremacist_,"  then I've established my case that it is black people who are getting an unfair advantage.  You are what I see as the epitome of what a supremacist is.  You live, eat, breathe and sleep this stuff.  Man, I was off today and we've spent the entire day arguing over this.  But, I am with you until the end on this subject as long as this thread lasts... or the man bans me for giving you the other side of this discussion.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
Click to expand...

I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Due to the fact that you stoop to calling me names and LYING I haven't bothered to read your last book.
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
Click to expand...



My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.  

Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.  

My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not welcomed.
> 
> It is tolerated.
> 
> None of the righties ever debate anything he says. All they do is accuse him of being a racist.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IM2 might get a debate if he'd quit writing a damn book in every post and actually debate something.  Twelve paragraphs are sufficient for any post.  Beyond that, NOBODY reads the post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talked about facts. I posted the facts. In a debate you use facts to back up your premise. That is what I did. You don't want to face the facts and are making excuses as to why you cannot defend your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You *claimed* you used facts.  You got your ass handed to you and you came back with chickenshit name calling.  Then you post a hundred paragraphs of gibberish.  Mindless stupidity!!!
Click to expand...

I did use facts and I beat your ass.so badly that you refused to read what you were shown.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one taking a spanking.  And I don't need  150 paragraphs to do it in either.
Click to expand...

You took a thorough ass kicking whereby I used information that destroyed all the arguments you could make.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a perfect example of the black supremacist racist point of view.
> 
> According to IM2, when race is used favoring whites, to determine job hiring, that is racism.
> 
> But when race is used favoring blacks (as in AA), he calls that "not racism"
> 
> So like all black (and white liberal) racists, he's OK with racial discrimination, as long as blacks are the beneficiaries, and whites are the victims.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that white women line again, I already shredded it.
Click to expand...

You haven't shredded shit. What happened was that your claim of AA favoring blacks got destroyed. AA has benefited white women the most. That's the way it is.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
Click to expand...

You haven't supported anything with facts.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> 
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of a right wing lie.
> 
> November 20, 2019
> *Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
> *
> "Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*
> 
> Analyzing Black Support for President Trump
> 
> Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gallup is just another mainstream media poll that is generally inaccurate, because being MSM, it is ignored by Republicans, and gets a disproportionate % of overwhelming leftist responses.
> 
> Information-deprived liberals didn't know this in 2016, and reading the inaccurate msm polls, were "sure" Hillary was going to win the next day.
> 
> Rasmussen is more accurate, because it is one of the few polls that Republicans trust (including blacks,) and do respond to it, in addition to Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't 2016, you don't want to talk about voter suppression, Hillary did win the popular vote as the polls predicted, Gallup is the best in the business, I am black and know what black people think of trump. I am a member of a majority black forum that's just as big as this one and there isn't much support for trump there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So it's an anti-Trump forum.  Big deal. So is political hotwire and many others.  Whoopee.
> 
> You can praise Gallup all you want, but it's just another MSM left poll, as 2016 showed.
> 
> Voter suppression ?  There needs to be much more to stop illegal aliens from voting.  Proof of citizenship needs to be required, to prevent illegitimate vote counts, as in 2016.  Despite all Hillary's illegals, she still lost.
> And there is no honor in winning a popular vote that includes millions of Democrat illegals.  Trump won the AMERICAN popular vote, big-time.
Click to expand...


No illegals voted. The Gallup poll is the best in the business. Trump will get 10 percent of the black vote and he should be glad for that. You're out to lunch with no food old man. Stop putting coke in your CPAP machine.


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

IM2 said:


> Butch_Coolidge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you group all whites together. You despise white people, and everyone knows it.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites have practiced racism and the laws and policies that are based on racism benefit all whites. So fuck your whining because I am not going to say not all whites every time I talk about racism.
Click to expand...


So fuck you, delusional racist. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Billyboom said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not welcomed.
> 
> It is tolerated.
> 
> None of the righties ever debate anything he says. All they do is accuse him of being a racist.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IM2 might get a debate if he'd quit writing a damn book in every post and actually debate something.  Twelve paragraphs are sufficient for any post.  Beyond that, NOBODY reads the post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You talked about facts. I posted the facts. In a debate you use facts to back up your premise. That is what I did. You don't want to face the facts and are making excuses as to why you cannot defend your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You *claimed* you used facts.  You got your ass handed to you and you came back with chickenshit name calling.  Then you post a hundred paragraphs of gibberish.  Mindless stupidity!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did use facts and I beat your ass.so badly that you refused to read what you were shown.
Click to expand...


You kissing my ass is not the same as beating it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These are your words.
> 
> *"Finally, America was founded by whites and our laws are predicated upon the Anglo - Saxon system of jurisprudence and our culture reflects the founding race. You don't want to integrate into that culture; you want to destroy it and your hatred has driven you to want to make this personal. Due to affirmative action, hiring quotas, and whites being scared shitless to say anything to hatemongers like you, they have pretty much lost their country and their culture."*
> 
> You are a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one taking a spanking.  And I don't need  150 paragraphs to do it in either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You took a thorough ass kicking whereby I used information that destroyed all the arguments you could make.
Click to expand...


You done nothing of the kind and the feedback on this testifies to that. You are a legend in your own mind.  I've addressed aspects of this issue you don't know how to deal with.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is a perfect example of the black supremacist racist point of view.
> 
> According to IM2, when race is used favoring whites, to determine job hiring, that is racism.
> 
> But when race is used favoring blacks (as in AA), he calls that "not racism"
> 
> So like all black (and white liberal) racists, he's OK with racial discrimination, as long as blacks are the beneficiaries, and whites are the victims.
> 
> And don't try to tell me that white women line again, I already shredded it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't shredded shit. What happened was that your claim of AA favoring blacks got destroyed. AA has benefited white women the most. That's the way it is.
Click to expand...


Your arguments have been totally annihilated.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't supported anything with facts.
Click to expand...


You must be blind as a bat.  You cannot point to any fact I've posted and refute it.


----------



## protectionist

MizMolly said:


> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA


While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Answering those EEOC questions is *voluntary*, as far as I know it's never been a requirement to answer them.


Correct, and I've NEVER answered one, and wouldn't be caught dead doing so. 

This wasn't what I was talking about however. the post was in response to a previos post claiming race is not part of AA.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.


FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.

Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.

Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.

When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> You haven't shredded shit. What happened was that your claim of AA favoring blacks got destroyed. AA has benefited white women the most. That's the way it is.


How funny to hear that long smashed to bits BS line uttered yet again.  You have a habit of ignoring all the ass kicking you've received, and pretending they never happened. Legend in your own mind.

OK, one more time   White women who benefit from AA are a tiny %, compared to all those who suffer from it due to husbands, fathers etc who are victimized. And those include the ones who benefit as well. 

ALL white women are victimized, including the beneficiaries, simultaneous with their benefit.  Maybe you're too stupid to get all this, Could that be it ?  

How many times have I corrected you about white women ?  10 ? 20 ? 100?  Sheeesh !  You know the truth about it. Stop bullshitting.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> No illegals voted. The Gallup poll is the best in the business. Trump will get 10 percent of the black vote and he should be glad for that. You're out to lunch with no food old man. Stop putting coke in your CPAP machine.


"_Old_ man" ?  So now you add ageism to go along with your racism, I see.  As for your dopey Gallup 10%, I've already smashed that to bits in previous posts too.  No need to keep repeating. Everybody here read what I wrote.  

As for CPAP machine, neva hoid'v it.

And the whole country knows that Hillary won the popular vote only because of millions of illegals' votes, and that's why Democrats support these low-life invaders, with amnesty votes, sanctuary cities, etc.  Few issues have been more researched than illegal aliens voting.   I posted 10 links, but it could have been 100, if I had more time.  

But you keep blabbering away all your jibberish. Makes you feel better, apparently.  

Texas Democrats ask noncitizens to register to vote

Poll: 13% of Illegal Aliens ADMIT They Vote - California Political Review

https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Safe-Spaces_Final.pdf

Finally Proof of Illegal Alien Voting

Noncitizens, Voting Violations and U.S. Elections | Federation for American Immigration Reform

Illegal Aliens Really Do Vote – a Lot

https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Report_Alien-Invasion-in-Virginia.pdf

https://publicinterestlegal.org/files/Philadelphia-Litigation-Report.pdf

Exclusive: Florida Investigating Potential Non-Citizen Voters

Poll Shows Noncitizens Can Shape Elections


----------



## MizMolly

protectionist said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
Click to expand...

I always wonder how anyone knows whether or not white women benefit most. I have never been given a job just because I am female.


----------



## IM2




----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


>


I would not watch a video of this screwball if you paid me.  My computer might rot out.


----------



## IM2

*There Are A Lot Of Angry White People In America, And It’s A Problem*
By John Haltiwanger
Jan 7, 2016

White people, particularly men, are by far the most privileged group in the US in essentially every capacity.

Historically and presently, no other demographic in America has enjoyed such consistency in terms of rights and opportunities.

Across the board, white Americans are generally treated with more respect, trust and dignity than minorities.

Simply put, white privilege is alive and well.

As the New York Times put it,

What does white privilege mean today? In part, it means to live in the world while being given the benefit of the doubt.
White privilege does not guarantee every white American will become exorbitantly wealthy or wildly successful.

It's the notion white people enjoy greater freedom of mobility across the social, political and economic landscape of the US. And there is ample evidence to support this assertion.

For example, whites are decidedly less likely than blacks to be pulled over, arrested, incarcerated, harassed or killed by police. And even though white people are more likely to deal drugs, they are less likely than blacks to be arrested for it.

Research shows people with "white-sounding" names are even more likely to get called in for job interviews than those with "black-sounding" names.

Not to mention, black children in the US are nearly four times as likely as white children to live in poverty.

Indeed, white privilege is endemic in American society.

This is why it's somewhat baffling a new poll, entitled "American Rage," reveals whites are the angriest group in the US.

The online poll was conducted by NBC/Survey Monkey/Esquire between Nov. 20-24 and surveyed 3,257 adults.

Around half of all Americans (49 percent) said they feel angrier about current events than they did a year ago.

Whites make up the most enraged cohort of Americans, with 54 percent saying their anger escalated over the course of the year. Comparatively, 43 percent of Hispanics and 33 percent of African-Americans expressed similar sentiments.

Moreover, around 73 percent of whites say they get angry once daily, compared to 56 percent of blacks and 66 percent of Hispanics.

There were many interesting findings in this poll, but the racial disparities are perhaps the most telling in terms of the current state of America. As the editors of Esquire wrote,

Indeed, despite having what many would consider a more legitimate case for feeling angry, black Americans are generally less angry than whites. Though they take great issue with the way they are treated by both society in general and the police in particular, blacks are also more likely than whites to believe that the American dream is alive; that America is still the most powerful country in the world… Their optimism in the face of adversity suggests that hope, whatever its other virtues, remains a potent antidote to anger.
In other words, the group with the least number of reasons to feel aggrieved is somehow the most enraged in American society.

But where is this white rage coming from?

*One might say it's a product of a culture of entitlement and an attachment to a mythicized version of US that never truly existed.*

There Are A Lot Of Angry White People In America, And It’s A Problem


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> *There Are A Lot Of Angry White People In America, And It’s A Problem*
> By John Haltiwanger
> Jan 7, 2016
> 
> White people, particularly men, are by far the most privileged group in the US in essentially every capacity.
> 
> Historically and presently, no other demographic in America has enjoyed such consistency in terms of rights and opportunities.
> 
> Across the board, white Americans are generally treated with more respect, trust and dignity than minorities.
> 
> Simply put, white privilege is alive and well.
> 
> As the New York Times put it,
> 
> What does white privilege mean today? In part, it means to live in the world while being given the benefit of the doubt.
> White privilege does not guarantee every white American will become exorbitantly wealthy or wildly successful.
> 
> It's the notion white people enjoy greater freedom of mobility across the social, political and economic landscape of the US. And there is ample evidence to support this assertion.
> 
> For example, whites are decidedly less likely than blacks to be pulled over, arrested, incarcerated, harassed or killed by police. And even though white people are more likely to deal drugs, they are less likely than blacks to be arrested for it.
> 
> Research shows people with "white-sounding" names are even more likely to get called in for job interviews than those with "black-sounding" names.
> 
> Not to mention, black children in the US are nearly four times as likely as white children to live in poverty.
> 
> Indeed, white privilege is endemic in American society.
> 
> This is why it's somewhat baffling a new poll, entitled "American Rage," reveals whites are the angriest group in the US.
> 
> The online poll was conducted by NBC/Survey Monkey/Esquire between Nov. 20-24 and surveyed 3,257 adults.
> 
> Around half of all Americans (49 percent) said they feel angrier about current events than they did a year ago.
> 
> Whites make up the most enraged cohort of Americans, with 54 percent saying their anger escalated over the course of the year. Comparatively, 43 percent of Hispanics and 33 percent of African-Americans expressed similar sentiments.
> 
> Moreover, around 73 percent of whites say they get angry once daily, compared to 56 percent of blacks and 66 percent of Hispanics.
> 
> There were many interesting findings in this poll, but the racial disparities are perhaps the most telling in terms of the current state of America. As the editors of Esquire wrote,
> 
> Indeed, despite having what many would consider a more legitimate case for feeling angry, black Americans are generally less angry than whites. Though they take great issue with the way they are treated by both society in general and the police in particular, blacks are also more likely than whites to believe that the American dream is alive; that America is still the most powerful country in the world… Their optimism in the face of adversity suggests that hope, whatever its other virtues, remains a potent antidote to anger.
> In other words, the group with the least number of reasons to feel aggrieved is somehow the most enraged in American society.
> 
> But where is this white rage coming from?
> 
> *One might say it's a product of a culture of entitlement and an attachment to a mythicized version of US that never truly existed.*
> 
> There Are A Lot Of Angry White People In America, And It’s A Problem


There are many totally idiotic things that liberals "might say", and do say.  Ho hum.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not watch a video of this screwball if you paid me.  My computer might rot out.
Click to expand...


IM2 has no argument of his own.  He keeps quoting political propaganda prostitutes to make up for his inability to engage people in civil conversation.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You called him 'hatemonger' in the screed where you complained about name calling. The self awareness of a deplorable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
Click to expand...

Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.

For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:

"America was founded by white people for white people"

versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement

"The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.

The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".

Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...

You're mistaken

* Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says *
By DAVID G. SAVAGE
May 19, 1987
12 AM
Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — 

Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, *the Supreme Court *ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.

In two unanimous decisions, *the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance*.

Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.

But, *in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group*. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.

The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and _a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”_

“This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.

_*“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said*_.

The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.

In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.

Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.

“Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.

Dilemma for Jews

Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.

“The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.

Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”

The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
​


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
Click to expand...

You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.

So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.

So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy. 

But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would not watch a video of this screwball if you paid me.  My computer might rot out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IM2 has no argument of his own.  He keeps quoting political propaganda prostitutes to make up for his inability to engage people in civil conversation.
Click to expand...

My argument is supported by facts and I use the supporting evidence. You're just getting your racist ass kicked.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speak Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
Click to expand...


He's lying.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
Click to expand...

70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.

Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
Click to expand...


PREACH!

There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.


----------



## katsteve2012

MizMolly said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. AA was introduced in 1961, and magically overnight, millions of black people displaced millions of white people in the work force and colleges.
> 
> Jim Crow had not even been totally abolished in 1961, you dumbass.
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> *A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. *
> 
> In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.
> who tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Source:
> White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And as an information-deprived, liberal, victim of liberal Omission media, you still don't know why white women are among AA's fiercest critics ?
> 
> I find it hard to believe that I have not already educated you to this, but for the 300th time or so, the number of white women gaining from AA, is a drop in the bucket compared to the many millions of white daughters and wives of white men discriminated against. Ho hum.
> 
> And in many AA programs, white women are discriminated against too, as are Hispanics and Asians, with only blacks being the beneficiaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nonsense. Until you can produce any credible facts which refute the success of white females since the implementation of AA, as well as statistical proof of blacks that have benefitted from AA at the expense of "millions of whites" as you claim,  you are just typing incoherent gibberish as usual.
> 
> Your made up BS does not count as a credible source.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
Click to expand...


There are a plethora of sources and  statistics that state otherwise. This is just one of many. 

Ironically, the group that affirmative action helps the most is also one of its most stringent opponents. Statistics show that white women benefit immensely from affirmative action, but according to Vox, they are also among those who most want to see it abolished.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to the period of time when early settlers arrived, you pathetic dumbass, not the present. Pay attention or STFU.
> 
> And WTF do you mean "WE"?
> 
> Even though you claim to be half Hispanic, you more frequently identify as white in this forum.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah ? Like where ?
> 
> And when are you going to take the QUIZ ?  Otherwise, you have no business being here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
Click to expand...



From your own link.....nutcase:


"I have a better chance of jumping center for the Celtics tonight than Donald Trump having 30 percent support in the African-American community,” former Hillary Clinton adviser Joel Payne, who is African-American, told InsideSources.

 “Donald Trump’s presidency is an existential crisis for the African-American community and I would predict historically low African-American support for him next November.”

CNN’s anti-Trump host Ana Navarro-Cardenas went even further. “Zero chance this is accurate. Zero,” she tweeted. “The poll must have only been conducted in the homes of Ben Carson, Kanye, that sheriff guy with the hat and those two Cubic Zirconia & Polyester-Spandex ladies.” (She’s referring to former Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clarke and African-American Fox News personalities Diamond & Silk.)

And it’s true that these polls are contradicted by data from Gallup and Quinnipiac University, where Trump’s numbers among black voters remain both steady and unimpressive".


Trump has far more pressing issues confronting him as of now, and gaining the black vote by using smoke, mirrors and bullshit is the least of them.

You're a dumbass, low information idior.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> 
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like most conservatives, I regard what liberals consider fact sources, as laughingstocks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then pick a source that you consider to be credible. And your opinion/whining  does not count
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> However, you have yet to prove that anything I have said is a lie.
> 
> Your delusions and individual persecution complex do not qualify as facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to prove what everyone knows.  Wanna give us proof that fire is hot ? That fish can swim ?  Got any proof ?  You damn fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything here except your lacking of any logical thought.
> 
> That is at least one fact in your favor....crazy person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I hope this doesn't give you liberal constipation, but most things in life don't require your sanctimonious "source".
> 
> Is water wet ?  Are mountains tall ? Do mosquitos bite ? Do AA questionnaires cite race ? Duh!
Click to expand...


We live in a world of information and statistics, you stupid ass.

And you never provide a single one to support your ignorant rants.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of a right wing lie.
> 
> November 20, 2019
> *Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
> *
> "Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*
> 
> Analyzing Black Support for President Trump
> 
> Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gallup is just another mainstream media poll that is generally inaccurate, because being MSM, it is ignored by Republicans, and gets a disproportionate % of overwhelming leftist responses.
> 
> Information-deprived liberals didn't know this in 2016, and reading the inaccurate msm polls, were "sure" Hillary was going to win the next day.
> 
> Rasmussen is more accurate, because it is one of the few polls that Republicans trust (including blacks,) and do respond to it, in addition to Democrats.
Click to expand...


He posted a video, you damn fool. Dispute that as opposed to deflecting as usual.


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"Unfortunately for the racists in the white population, there are whites who actually are not racist. *They generally are not the ones calling every non white that speaks out about racism a racist, they don't cry about affirmative action, they understand that whites have always been the preferred race, by statute and policy, they don't whine about imaginary anti white discrimination and they don't need to be told it's OK to be white. The racists are the ones that do all the whining. Because for white men having 70 percent of all the jobs isn't enough. Porter Rockhead provided us with evidence that whites, specifically white men, believe they are entitled. In the opinion of a toilet bowl ring like him, whites are to be given everything in America because America was founded for whites based only on the color of their skin."
> 
> This is what I posted in #65. This is an example of the more than 5,000 times I have made a comment in this regard. So my racism is imaginary and it's made up in order to try shutting me up or to derail. The people doing this are the ones like Rockhead, Prostitute, Incontinent, Vasturbator, and other members of stormfront. My racism doesn't exist, but the history and continuation of racism by whites in America does. As long as it does and God allows me to live, I will be speaking on it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Blacks have been the "preferred race by statute and policy" , since 1961 (beginning of Affirmative Action)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post the statute and policy along with the verbiage that mandates preferential treatment for blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is not one that exists. Affirmative Action policy is not, nor has it ever been race specific.
> 
> The introduction of it just made it unlawful to discriminate based on race, and to many in positions of receiving  preferential treatment by default,  that felt like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Practically everyone in this country has applied for a job, and been confronted with Affirmative Action questionnaires.
> 
> They all know that what you just said here is a total lie, and shows what an idiot you are.  This ludicrous lie of yours has zero chance of being believed.
> 
> Everyone knows AA questionnaires require selection of a RACE among a multiple choice of typically, at least 5 choices.
> 
> Nothing dumber than a bad liar, and you're about the flimsiest one in this forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Answering those EEOC questions is *voluntary*, as far as I know it's never been a requirement to answer them.
Click to expand...


It never has been required. If I stay in this thread, I will post proof of that for the village idiot to see.


----------



## katsteve2012

MizMolly said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always wonder how anyone knows whether or not white women benefit most. I have never been given a job just because I am female.
Click to expand...


And I was never "given a job for being black".

IMO what is really being discussed here is not to imply that ALL white females have benefitted from AA. 

Just the fact that "generally" they have benefitted more than others.

And I will add, that "FEMALES" generally have benefitted more, and they SHOULD. 

They represent a larger portion of the population size, and have been marginalized in the past by a white male dominated workforce.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you that I do not care what you call me and what I said is honest, accurate and true.  Is it white supremacy?  I don't know but, instead of hijacking this thread, I'll start my own and let the posters decide.  See if you can keep your maximum responses to 12 paragraphs.  Otherwise I won't bother to address the blather.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will post what I want. The quoted statement is a white supremacist belief. This nation was "founded" by excluding non whites and women that lived  here from attending the constitutional convention. You ignore this fact in your comment. These men believed that only white men had the  capacity to form a nation. That in itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> I don't give a fuck what you won't address. You have no rebuttal to offer that will make sense. I am prepared to embarrass you and I will make an example out of you. You starting a thread thinking that the other members of stormfront who support your racism validates you, doesn't give your opinion merit.
> 
> Mortimer started this thread and has admitted to being a member of stormfront. So we all know you and those like  you will deny that you are white supremacists. Nobody white admits to being or believing in white supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No black supremacist ever admits to his racism, such as all those supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's because speaking out on white racism isn't black supremacy and AA is not racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF AA isn't racism, then neither are segregated schools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> AA isn't racism. Segregated schools is. Whites are a race and whites have benefited the most from the policy.
> No more of your opinion. Produce numeric evidence of how AA has had an adverse impact on whites. None of this anecdotal garbage, show reductions in white income, wealth, education and employment since AA was ordered. Then show the provision in the executive order where it states AA is specifically ordered only for blacks.
Click to expand...



There has been no reduction in the prosperity of the white population in general that can be directly  traced to the introduction of AA.

IMO opinion, segregated but MANDATORILY EQUAL schools would be fine. if properly implemented.

What failed with previous segregation strategies is that TRUE EQUALITY never was the norm.

I recall it and saw it in effect.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
Click to expand...

You perceive wrong.  When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing.  The blacks got it all.  The non-blacks got nothing.

This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades.  Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly.  95% minorities. 5% white women.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
Click to expand...

You will say anything to defend AA, but you're fighting a losing battle.  AA is racist and sexist bigot discrimination, and you are a bigot as long as you support it.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always wonder how anyone knows whether or not white women benefit most. I have never been given a job just because I am female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was never "given a job for being black".
> 
> IMO what is really being discussed here is not to imply that ALL white females have benefitted from AA.
> 
> Just the fact that "generally" they have benefitted more than others.
> 
> And I will add, that "FEMALES" generally have benefitted more, and they SHOULD.
> 
> They represent a larger portion of the population size, and have been marginalized in the past by a white male dominated workforce.
Click to expand...

If white females benefitted more from AA, they would be more prolific in govt buildings, where AA is commonly enacted.

Perfect test case is VA hospital, with very large hospital staff.  Very few white females.  95% blacks, Hispanics, and Indians.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speak Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's lying.
Click to expand...

Shut up, fool.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PREACH!
> 
> There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
Click to expand...

There are men and women who are in power who attempt to deny others to purchase food and drink to survive. To experience that is surreal. Egos are a powerful element in life. And when empowered not a thought of trampling over the rights of another occurs as genuflecting to them is a must. And there are always people ho will convey any discourse they can. I can only say get an attorney as soon as it happens. It is a Constitutional infraction and a Biblical one. Some may even promote the Bible. Also I typed here before that women benefitted in droves in the 1970's from AA. Many retired in comfort around the millennial in good jobs whether they were deserved or not. We have not stopped this practice and our competitiveness to others in the world is in decline.


----------



## sparky

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?



According to IM2  i may as well join the local KKK chapter....





Mortimer said:


> Just like the Bible says



more how folks interpret the bible Mort....



Mortimer said:


> The dog also loves you and he is faithful.



dogs are better people....than people...

~S~


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
Click to expand...

Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.

Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken
> 
> * Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says *
> By DAVID G. SAVAGE
> May 19, 1987
> 12 AM
> Times Staff Writer
> WASHINGTON —
> 
> Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, *the Supreme Court *ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.
> 
> In two unanimous decisions, *the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance*.
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.
> 
> But, *in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group*. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.
> 
> The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and _a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”_
> 
> “This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.
> 
> _*“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said*_.
> 
> The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.
> 
> In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.
> 
> Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.
> 
> “Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.
> 
> Dilemma for Jews
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.
> 
> “The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
> 
> Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”
> 
> The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
> Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
> ​
Click to expand...

Well, what a great article. Trouble is it's irrelevant to what I said.  What the creeps at Memphis State did had nothing to do with law.  It was just a result of how they chose to dispense assistantships.  All to blacks, and no one else.

This is common.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You perceive wrong.  When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing.  The blacks got it all.  The non-blacks got nothing.
> 
> This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades.  Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly.  95% minorities. 5% white women.
Click to expand...

Lie.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm only calling his hate what it is.  Go to the first time on this thread and show me the justification for him calling me a white supremacist.  Now fuck off.
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
Click to expand...


If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them.  The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.

OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered.  You cannot criminalize Liberty.  You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee.  We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else.  We are a free market economy.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You perceive wrong.  When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing.  The blacks got it all.  The non-blacks got nothing.
> 
> This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades.  Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly.  95% minorities. 5% white women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lie.
Click to expand...

Are you a US military veteran ?


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them.  The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
> 
> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered.  You cannot criminalize Liberty.  You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee.  We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else.  We are a free market economy.
Click to expand...

If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.

This should not be paid from the govt though.  It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA.  Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them.  The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
> 
> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered.  You cannot criminalize Liberty.  You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee.  We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else.  We are a free market economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.
> 
> This should not be paid from the govt though.  It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA.  Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.
Click to expand...


Copy that.  I was programmed to believe that we owed the black people for alleged past wrongs.  And so, I watched black people get promoted over me and my anger was directed at the government since my parents kept telling me that two wrongs don't make a right.

Employers had rather stuff hot butter up a wild cat's ass than to reprimand their token black workers.  All the black guy had to do was throw that big D word out there (discrimination) and it was all over.  Instead, employers would reprimand an entire work force just because one guy took advantage of the rules.  

After being exposed to hatemongers like IM2, who has an insult for anyone that disagrees with him, some of my anger and frustration is now aimed at those black people who think the world owes them a living.  

Here, in the Atlanta area, a week or so back, a conservative talk show was out and a sister station of WSB radio had black hosts taking his spot for the day (or whatever time period he was out.)  They were open in speaking about black privilege - how they can publicly say the N word, but whites can't.  Blacks can dabble in racial humor, insult white people, and it is acceptable.  So it is what it is because the whites got goaded into a false sense of guilt (discrimination and slavery seem to work most of the time.)   Now, trying to get people to stand up and say that this race game works both ways is near impossible.


----------



## 22lcidw

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them.  The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
> 
> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered.  You cannot criminalize Liberty.  You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee.  We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else.  We are a free market economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.
> 
> This should not be paid from the govt though.  It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA.  Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy that.  I was programmed to believe that we owed the black people for alleged past wrongs.  And so, I watched black people get promoted over me and my anger was directed at the government since my parents kept telling me that two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Employers had rather stuff hot butter up a wild cat's ass than to reprimand their token black workers.  All the black guy had to do was throw that big D word out there (discrimination) and it was all over.  Instead, employers would reprimand an entire work force just because one guy took advantage of the rules.
> 
> After being exposed to hatemongers like IM2, who has an insult for anyone that disagrees with him, some of my anger and frustration is now aimed at those black people who think the world owes them a living.
> 
> Here, in the Atlanta area, a week or so back, a conservative talk show was out and a sister station of WSB radio had black hosts taking his spot for the day (or whatever time period he was out.)  They were open in speaking about black privilege - how they can publicly say the N word, but whites can't.  Blacks can dabble in racial humor, insult white people, and it is acceptable.  So it is what it is because the whites got goaded into a false sense of guilt (discrimination and slavery seem to work most of the time.)   Now, trying to get people to stand up and say that this race game works both ways is near impossible.
Click to expand...

This can not endure. It can not last. For those who replace have to be at leas the same and or better. We are falling behind at this point.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

22lcidw said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them.  The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
> 
> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered.  You cannot criminalize Liberty.  You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee.  We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else.  We are a free market economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.
> 
> This should not be paid from the govt though.  It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA.  Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Copy that.  I was programmed to believe that we owed the black people for alleged past wrongs.  And so, I watched black people get promoted over me and my anger was directed at the government since my parents kept telling me that two wrongs don't make a right.
> 
> Employers had rather stuff hot butter up a wild cat's ass than to reprimand their token black workers.  All the black guy had to do was throw that big D word out there (discrimination) and it was all over.  Instead, employers would reprimand an entire work force just because one guy took advantage of the rules.
> 
> After being exposed to hatemongers like IM2, who has an insult for anyone that disagrees with him, some of my anger and frustration is now aimed at those black people who think the world owes them a living.
> 
> Here, in the Atlanta area, a week or so back, a conservative talk show was out and a sister station of WSB radio had black hosts taking his spot for the day (or whatever time period he was out.)  They were open in speaking about black privilege - how they can publicly say the N word, but whites can't.  Blacks can dabble in racial humor, insult white people, and it is acceptable.  So it is what it is because the whites got goaded into a false sense of guilt (discrimination and slavery seem to work most of the time.)   Now, trying to get people to stand up and say that this race game works both ways is near impossible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This can not endure. It can not last. For those who replace have to be at leas the same and or better. We are falling behind at this point.
Click to expand...


Where do you think a nation goes when one segment of society wants to erase the names on our streets, the names on buildings, and the names of schools?  Where does a nation go when that same segment wants the removal of statues, monuments, memorials, flags, and even the faces of people on our currency?  Where does a nation go when the founding race is denied the Rights of Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association?  Every facet of our history is under attack.

Sharing power got us kicked out of the country our forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure our Liberty in.


----------



## Hardcandy

Jitss617 said:


> It’s how every race feels .. blacks say they are Supreme, Latins, etc.. it’s natural to national


_I agree Jitts;_ and Western Civilization even _encourages_  public displays of *pride* among the new Melting Pot of un-assimilated heritages.

Unless of course your _pride_ is in anyway linked to the white race, which is strictly forbidden according to the rules of political correctness.

But if you don't mind being labeled a _racist _you can openly display enough _white pride_ to drive the liberal masses to the edge of plum-crazy.


----------



## MizMolly

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
Click to expand...

Same can be said of black women or black men. I went back and got a degree when I was 50. Nobody handed me anything and I never complained about it. I worked hard, studied hard and earned every damn thing I ever got.


----------



## Uncensored2008

IM2 said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
Click to expand...


You are in no position to complain about the racism of others.

You and he should be locked in a cage with knives to fight it out....


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PREACH!
> 
> There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
Click to expand...

Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Hardcandy said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s how every race feels .. blacks say they are Supreme, Latins, etc.. it’s natural to national
> 
> 
> 
> _I agree Jitts;_ and Western Civilization even _encourages_  public displays of *pride* among the new Melting Pot of un-assimilated heritages.
> 
> Unless of course your _pride_ is in anyway linked to the white race, which is strictly forbidden according to the rules of political correctness.
> 
> But if you don't mind being labeled a _racist _you can openly display enough _white pride_ to drive the liberal masses to the edge of plum-crazy.
Click to expand...


The problem is, when you work for a living, being called a racist is worse than being called a pedophile and you will be blacklisted a Hell of a lot faster.  Maybe it's time to take a stand.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

katsteve2012 said:


> “The poll must have only been conducted in the homes of Ben Carson, Kanye, that sheriff guy with the hat and those two Cubic Zirconia & Polyester-Spandex ladies.” (She’s referring to former Milwaukee Sheriff David A. Clarke and African-American Fox News personalities Diamond & Silk.)


LOL, I knew exactly who she's referring to, friggin hilarious


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Claiming the United States was founded by white people [only] for white people and all that statement implies, doesn't make you a white supremacist in your mind?  Or a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You perceive wrong.  When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing.  The blacks got it all.  The non-blacks got nothing.
> 
> This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades.  Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly.  95% minorities. 5% white women.
Click to expand...

Even in the whitest states in the country we'll see 95% minorities and 5% white women?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
> 
> Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
Click to expand...

You shouldn't refer to your family members that way, even if they are a bunch of racists & bigots, no need to compare them to dogs and insults dogs needlessly.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MizMolly said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same can be said of black women or black men.
Click to expand...

How so?  According to you all, all we have to do is be black and quality jobs which none of us are qualified for fall into our laps like manna from heaven.  

Also if the same can be said of black women & women, that allegedly (or presumably) all or some were never going to get the job anyway, then what the hell are you all complaining about when stating that white men are getting screwed out of jobs?  Either black people are not getting jobs that they never were going to get anyway (that you all should be okay with) or we're taking all of the jobs and thereby screwing white people out of 'their' jobs.



MizMolly said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went back and got a degree when I was 50. Nobody handed me anything and I never complained about it. I worked hard, studied hard and earned every damn thing I ever got.
Click to expand...

Well good for you, that's certainly something to be proud of.  And when women of color do the same thing, either earlier in life or later in life such as yourself, they are not entitled to use that degree that they worked so hard for to obtain a coveted job that helps them with upward mobility without being accused of screwing white people out of jobs?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken
> 
> * Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says *
> By DAVID G. SAVAGE
> May 19, 1987
> 12 AM
> Times Staff Writer
> WASHINGTON —
> 
> Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, *the Supreme Court *ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.
> 
> In two unanimous decisions, *the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance*.
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.
> 
> But, *in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group*. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.
> 
> The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and _a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”_
> 
> “This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.
> 
> _*“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said*_.
> 
> The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.
> 
> In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.
> 
> Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.
> 
> “Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.
> 
> Dilemma for Jews
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.
> 
> “The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
> 
> Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”
> 
> The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
> Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what a great article. Trouble is it's irrelevant to what I said.  What the creeps at Memphis State did had nothing to do with law.  It was just a result of how they chose to dispense assistantships.  All to blacks, and no one else.
> 
> This is common.
Click to expand...

The article contradicts what you said and is current case law.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.


If I asked you if you are a white supremacist would you say that you are?  Because your comments indicate that you are whether you're able to see that or not.  What other reason is there for you continuing to go back to the statement that only whites could be citizens and your feverent objection to and declaration that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified if not due to the fact that you object to non-whites having been granted citizenship and having the same U.S. Constitutional rights and protections as citizens that whites enjoy?  I can't fathom another reason for this although I will acknowledge that you seemed to point to a comment made by another poster that the term "white supremacist" is considered a deragatory term and that white supremacists are considered pretty much a fringe element.


Porter Rockwell said:


> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty.


What economic opportunites were willingly offered to people African descent?  And do you think the lawful denial of liberty does to people?


Porter Rockwell said:


> You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.


So how are white men getting screwed out of jobs if they were never entitled to them in the first place under the free market system?  

And affirmative action doesn't force companies to do anything other than to "disregard" race, national origin, religion, etc. in hiring and other areas of employment (promotions, etc.).  In other words it provides a statutory cause of action for discrimination based on any protected class violations.  This isn't a volation of the U.S. Constitution although a company could possibly be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause

The *Equal Protection Clause* is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".

A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.

The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for _Brown v. Board of Education_ (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards people belonging to various groups.​


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MizMolly said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PREACH!
> 
> There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.
Click to expand...

What do you consider proof?  Because you have made this statement numerous times before and I have personally provided you with U.S. Department of Labor reports & statistics that show how they gathered and tracked the number of women and minorities in mangerial positions after the passage of affirmative action.  They also gathered data from discrimination lawsuits instituted after affirmative action provided a statutory cause of action (right to sue)

So if you don't consider goverment reports and documentation, stats culled from lawsuits, etc. as proof, what exactly constitutes acceptable proof to you?  And what's your degree in?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always wonder how anyone knows whether or not white women benefit most. I have never been given a job just because I am female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was never "given a job for being black".
> 
> IMO what is really being discussed here is not to imply that ALL white females have benefitted from AA.
> 
> Just the fact that "generally" they have benefitted more than others.
> 
> And I will add, that "FEMALES" generally have benefitted more, and they SHOULD.
> 
> They represent a larger portion of the population size, and have been marginalized in the past by a white male dominated workforce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If white females benefitted more from AA, they would be more prolific in govt buildings, where AA is commonly enacted.
> 
> Perfect test case is VA hospital, with very large hospital staff.  Very few white females.  95% blacks, Hispanics, and Indians.
Click to expand...


95% black at which VA hospital? I have a family member who is a doctor in the VA system and could likely verify what you claim.


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You perceive wrong.  When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing.  The blacks got it all.  The non-blacks got nothing.
> 
> This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades.  Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly.  95% minorities. 5% white women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even in the whitest states in the country we'll see 95% minorities and 5% white women?
Click to expand...


That's clearly an exaggeration for dramatic effect...lol.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
> 
> Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
Click to expand...


AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.

 What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?

Even YOU should know that.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PREACH!
> 
> There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider proof?  Because you have made this statement numerous times before and I have personally provided you with U.S. Department of Labor reports & statistics that show how they gathered and tracked the number of women and minorities in mangerial positions after the passage of affirmative action.  They also gathered data from discrimination lawsuits instituted after affirmative action provided a statutory cause of action (right to sue)
> 
> So if you don't consider goverment reports and documentation, stats culled from lawsuits, etc. as proof, what exactly constitutes acceptable proof to you?  And what's your degree in?
Click to expand...


He must think that all he has to do is say what he says over and over again.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like where? Are you F'ing serious? Nearly 100% of your posts are you whining about how WHITE people are treated so unfairly because of AA.
> 
> As for you quiz...stop obsessing over it. I'm not taking it, nor am I interested in doing so.
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of a right wing lie.
> 
> November 20, 2019
> *Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
> *
> "Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*
> 
> Analyzing Black Support for President Trump
> 
> Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The discussion of the number of Black Republicans came from when katsteve said (lol) that it was a "stretch" to say hundreds of Black Republicans.  He also called that "ludicrous"
> 
> By Rasmussen figures of 34% (of 37 million US blacks), that would be 12 MILLION US black Republicans.
> 
> Wanna use Gallup's numbers ?  Their 10% calculates to almost 4 MILLION black Republicans.
> 
> Only thing "ludicrous" in all this, is katsteve even showing up around here.
Click to expand...


You are a pathological liar. You stated "thousands of black Republicans oppose AA as discrimination against white people".

There are not "thousands" of black Republicans in Washington or in government offices in America, you delusional creep.

And Rasmussen is equally as biased as any other poll out there.


Pollster: Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
Click to expand...


What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?

Interestingly, the current population of the city of Memphis is over 60% black, yet Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black.


----------



## IM2

The arrogance is amazing. These guys are expressing pure racism and claim it's not so. I have asked to see where AA has caused an adverse impact on whites. Each time this has happened you hear the wind blow. That's because AA doesn't hurt whites. All the bloviation on planet earth doesn't change this:

*AA has taken nothing from whites.*


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
Click to expand...


Way back never. And do you ever remember being offered AA and a job? It's illegal for an employer to say you were hired because of race. That fool really needs to quit lying.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way back never. And do you ever remember being offered AA and a job? It's illegal for an employer to say you were hired because of race. That fool really needs to quit lying.
Click to expand...


True. I guess if a person repeats a lie enough to themselves it becomes their reality.

I never got any job because of  being black, I was at the company that I retired from long enough to go from being 1 of 2 blacks in my entire  division covering 6 states, to seeing more minority hires over time but the majority of them in later years were middle easterners and Pakistanis, which was fine, and I interviewed and made decisions to hire some of them myself.

But I can assure you that I have living older relatives and friends who were denied quite a few jobs, because they were.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
> 
> 
> 
> If I asked you if you are a white supremacist would you say that you are?  Because your comments indicate that you are whether you're able to see that or not.  What other reason is there for you continuing to go back to the statement that only whites could be citizens and your feverent objection to and declaration that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified if not due to the fact that you object to non-whites having been granted citizenship and having the same U.S. Constitutional rights and protections as citizens that whites enjoy?  I can't fathom another reason for this although I will acknowledge that you seemed to point to a comment made by another poster that the term "white supremacist" is considered a deragatory term and that white supremacists are considered pretty much a fringe element.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What economic opportunites were willingly offered to people African descent?  And do you think the lawful denial of liberty does to people?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how are white men getting screwed out of jobs if they were never entitled to them in the first place under the free market system?
> 
> And affirmative action doesn't force companies to do anything other than to "disregard" race, national origin, religion, etc. in hiring and other areas of employment (promotions, etc.).  In other words it provides a statutory cause of action for discrimination based on any protected class violations.  This isn't a volation of the U.S. Constitution although a company could possibly be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause
> 
> The *Equal Protection Clause* is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
> 
> A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.
> 
> The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for _Brown v. Board of Education_ (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards people belonging to various groups.​
Click to expand...



I will answer you this one time, but I have a policy against responding to  multi quote posts.  They are done by people who are desperate because they do not have a point.  Then the size of posts become cumbersome and nobody reads the responses.  You're lucky if they even access a couple of links.  For chits and giggles:

1)  I do not consider myself a white supremacist and only an idiot would.  As I've pointed out China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Zimbabwe - and maybe a dozen or so other countries are homogeneous countries.  *NONE of you pretending* to be concerned about white supremacists give a rat's ass about that.  You will buy products from those countries and never give them a second thought

2)  *IF* you had faithfully studied my objections to the 14th Amendment, you would understand by now that the 14th Amendment promised a false kind of forced "_equality"_ between the races.

What the 14th Amendment actually accomplished was to *nullify the Bill of Rights* (especially *unalienable* Rights)  and replaced them with a system where all Americans are little more than government property with only privileges and immunities to be doled out as the government sees fit

3)  Anyone that is honest would never invoke the slavery argument into this discussion.  Remember, I am a descendant of those who separated from King George.  From the time the Mayflower hit our shores up until we won the War of Independence, America was under British control.  Instead of people like you acknowledging that, your kind has been happier than a pig in slop to see a racially mixed black girl become "_royalty._" 

There is no talk about reparations from the British on the slavery issue...only the Americans.  Your kind has been so dishonest that you have a hard time acknowledging that my ancestors, who were a part of the Constitution began *phasing out slavery* as soon as we ratified the Constitution - it's in that very document!  But, that's not good enough, is it?  You don't want to address the profiteers of slavery and I've never read a single line of outrage by blacks against their black brethren who rounded their fellow blacks up and sold them to slavers.  No way.  All that hate, intolerance and bigotry is saved for the white man and denying to the framers of the Constitution their work in abolishing slavery.

As if all that weren't enough, the blacks turned their backs on the political party that went to bat for them and illegally ratified the 14th Amendment and* joined the party that perpetuated slavery* and still advocates a form of slavery under various pretexts: democracy, socialism, liberalism, etc.

4)  Most people who think they know about affirmative action are either black OR they grew up after that program was employed.  Tap dance all around it but, when I grew up there were racial quotas, preferential hiring schemes, job set asides, and reverse discrimination to go along with affirmative action.  Many whites were forced to suffer while those programs supposedly made blacks "_equal_"  and now that the blacks have the power, they wage a war of genocide against the whites and you want to ask me if I'm a white supremacist???  How stupid!


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same can be said of black women or black men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  According to you all, all we have to do is be black and quality jobs which none of us are qualified for fall into our laps like manna from heaven.
> 
> Also if the same can be said of black women & women, that allegedly (or presumably) all or some were never going to get the job anyway, then what the hell are you all complaining about when stating that white men are getting screwed out of jobs?  Either black people are not getting jobs that they never were going to get anyway (that you all should be okay with) or we're taking all of the jobs and thereby screwing white people out of 'their' jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went back and got a degree when I was 50. Nobody handed me anything and I never complained about it. I worked hard, studied hard and earned every damn thing I ever got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you, that's certainly something to be proud of.  And when women of color do the same thing, either earlier in life or later in life such as yourself, they are not entitled to use that degree that they worked so hard for to obtain a coveted job that helps them with upward mobility without being accused of screwing white people out of jobs?
Click to expand...

According to us ?  No, according to reality of what has been happening for 50 years now. If you're black, the jobs fall into your lap, qualified or not.  We've been watching this lunacy all our lives.

Maybe the Trump administration will take some action to finally get rid of this disgrace to America.  They should have already.  If Trump is re-elected, and Republicans win back the House, + a Republican majority on the SCOTUS, affirmative action will be doomed.  Thank God.

It will be too late for those of my generation, but at least the younger folks will not have to live through it.

It would be nice too if us older people who have been victimized, would get some reparations compen$ation before we die.  It would be an awful lot of money.  Even a small % of what we lost, would be nice.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
> 
> Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You shouldn't refer to your family members that way, even if they are a bunch of racists & bigots, no need to compare them to dogs and insults dogs needlessly.
Click to expand...

.  
 YOU, and all the other supporters of AA, aware of your inadequacies, and willing to grab unfair advantages, are the wild dogs.  Nobody else.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken
> 
> * Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says *
> By DAVID G. SAVAGE
> May 19, 1987
> 12 AM
> Times Staff Writer
> WASHINGTON —
> 
> Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, *the Supreme Court *ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.
> 
> In two unanimous decisions, *the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance*.
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.
> 
> But, *in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group*. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.
> 
> The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and _a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”_
> 
> “This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.
> 
> _*“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said*_.
> 
> The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.
> 
> In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.
> 
> Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.
> 
> “Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.
> 
> Dilemma for Jews
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.
> 
> “The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
> 
> Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”
> 
> The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
> Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what a great article. Trouble is it's irrelevant to what I said.  What the creeps at Memphis State did had nothing to do with law.  It was just a result of how they chose to dispense assistantships.  All to blacks, and no one else.
> 
> This is common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article contradicts what you said and is current case law.
Click to expand...

Well, it looks like you wouldn't qualify for a job that requires intelligence.  As I just told you, all that article does is say who can be eligible for AA, not who has to be.  If the administrators wish to define their program to include certain groups within those the article cites, they may do that.

  The article really just says certain groups CAN be included. That's all.  Doesn't contradict anything I've said.  You get a lot of things wrong.  Hope you're not working in any kind of civil defense occupation, or fundamental utilities.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
> 
> 
> 
> If I asked you if you are a white supremacist would you say that you are?  Because your comments indicate that you are whether you're able to see that or not.  What other reason is there for you continuing to go back to the statement that only whites could be citizens and your feverent objection to and declaration that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified if not due to the fact that you object to non-whites having been granted citizenship and having the same U.S. Constitutional rights and protections as citizens that whites enjoy?  I can't fathom another reason for this although I will acknowledge that you seemed to point to a comment made by another poster that the term "white supremacist" is considered a deragatory term and that white supremacists are considered pretty much a fringe element.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What economic opportunites were willingly offered to people African descent?  And do you think the lawful denial of liberty does to people?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how are white men getting screwed out of jobs if they were never entitled to them in the first place under the free market system?
> 
> And affirmative action doesn't force companies to do anything other than to "disregard" race, national origin, religion, etc. in hiring and other areas of employment (promotions, etc.).  In other words it provides a statutory cause of action for discrimination based on any protected class violations.  This isn't a volation of the U.S. Constitution although a company could possibly be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause
> 
> The *Equal Protection Clause* is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
> 
> A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.
> 
> The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for _Brown v. Board of Education_ (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards people belonging to various groups.​
Click to expand...

WOW!  Is this what your liberal fake news media has been feeding you ?  This is incredible.  You display a total lack of knowledge of what AA is.

AA is exactly the Opposite of what you said it is.  NO, AA most certainly does not "disregard" race.  It regards it, makes choices based on who is of what race.  I can't believe you don't know that, or that your head is so twisted, that you could actually believe what you just said.

As for Equal Protection of the Law, that is exactly what AA does NOT do.  It is what AA violates, by placing one race ahead of another.

Man, people in this forum are messed up, whether they are lying or actually believe anything they hear.  Liberals are crazy.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I always wonder how anyone knows whether or not white women benefit most. I have never been given a job just because I am female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And I was never "given a job for being black".
> 
> IMO what is really being discussed here is not to imply that ALL white females have benefitted from AA.
> 
> Just the fact that "generally" they have benefitted more than others.
> 
> And I will add, that "FEMALES" generally have benefitted more, and they SHOULD.
> 
> They represent a larger portion of the population size, and have been marginalized in the past by a white male dominated workforce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If white females benefitted more from AA, they would be more prolific in govt buildings, where AA is commonly enacted.
> 
> Perfect test case is VA hospital, with very large hospital staff.  Very few white females.  95% blacks, Hispanics, and Indians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 95% black at which VA hospital? I have a family member who is a doctor in the VA system and could likely verify what you claim.
Click to expand...

I don't need anybody to verify what is 100% obvious.  This is another thing that liberals typically do.  They take what is totally obvious, and then try to distort it into being questionable.

There is no question about AA making the VA hospitals' staffs about 95% dark-skinned minorities.  Some things are hard to ascertain, and are questionable.  Not this.

All one need do is walk through the long hallways, and look around, and gaze into the open office doors.  Take an hour . See hundreds of employees.  Nothing but minorities.  Can't conceal this one.

Which VA hospital ?  James A Haley in Tampa.  Bay Pines in St Petersburg.  Others in California and New York too.
  Everywhere I've lived.  No secret.
  Go walk the halls.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You perceive wrong.  When all the non-blacks in my graduate school were denied assistantships, there was no sharing.  The blacks got it all.  The non-blacks got nothing.
> 
> This is commonly the way AA has worked for decades.  Walk the long hallways of your local VA hospital, and observe who's working there. You'll see clearly.  95% minorities. 5% white women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Even in the whitest states in the country we'll see 95% minorities and 5% white women?
Click to expand...

 Stupid question.
In any area that has a substantial number of minorities, there will be a large majority of them working in any govt agency, despite them being small in number relative to whites.

If you pick a place that has few or no minorities living there, then of course in that place there would be few minorities employed.  Duh!

None of that excuses the fact that in many, if not most, VA hospitals, minorities are grossly overrepresented among staff.  Dark doctors.  Light patients.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PREACH!
> 
> There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider proof?  Because you have made this statement numerous times before and I have personally provided you with U.S. Department of Labor reports & statistics that show how they gathered and tracked the number of women and minorities in mangerial positions after the passage of affirmative action.  They also gathered data from discrimination lawsuits instituted after affirmative action provided a statutory cause of action (right to sue)
> 
> So if you don't consider goverment reports and documentation, stats culled from lawsuits, etc. as proof, what exactly constitutes acceptable proof to you?  And what's your degree in?
Click to expand...

Reports & stats are only as reliable as the honesty and objectivity of the reporters of them.  Many are totally fraudulent, reflecting the bias of the reporters.  This easily can include govt reports, as many govt reporters are biased.

By far, the most reliable evidence is your eyes and ears.  If a report says a community is economically healthy, but you see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, your eyes deliver the correct conclusion, not the fraudulent written report.

Likewise, one can easily, visually ascertain the AA racial discrimination in VA hospitals, and other govt agencies.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
> 
> Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
> 
> What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
> 
> Even YOU should know that.
Click to expand...

None of that is relevant to 2020.  Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist.  Affirmative Action does.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PREACH!
> 
> There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider proof?  Because you have made this statement numerous times before and I have personally provided you with U.S. Department of Labor reports & statistics that show how they gathered and tracked the number of women and minorities in mangerial positions after the passage of affirmative action.  They also gathered data from discrimination lawsuits instituted after affirmative action provided a statutory cause of action (right to sue)
> 
> So if you don't consider goverment reports and documentation, stats culled from lawsuits, etc. as proof, what exactly constitutes acceptable proof to you?  And what's your degree in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He must think that all he has to do is say what he says over and over again.
Click to expand...

That's what YOU must think.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, you really are lacking.  Just because someone talks about white victimization, that doesn't mean they're identifying as white.  There are thousands of Black Republicans who condemn racial discrimination against whites in AA.  Get a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Thousands of Black Republicans"? There are some but thousands is a stretch.
> 
> You certainly have a way of embellishing numbers to the point of being ludicrous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what happens when people get caught up in liberal distortion media ?
> 
> Idiot. There are millions of Black Republicans.  Wow. Are you ever detached.
> 
> 37 million non-Hispanic blacks in America.  34% support Trump.  Got it ?
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Democrats are Doomed: Two Polls Show Support for Trump Among African Americans at 34% | Election 2020
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a classic example of a right wing lie.
> 
> November 20, 2019
> *Analyzing Black Support for President Trump*
> *
> "Gallup averages show Trump with a 10% approval rating among blacks in 2017, 11% in 2018 and 10% so far in 2019. In short, Trump's approval rating among blacks has essentially not changed over time, despite blacks presumably having had plenty of time to observe the economic gains that Trump touts as the reason why they should be moving into his camp."*
> 
> Analyzing Black Support for President Trump
> 
> Gallup is the best in the business and you used an opinion from a conservative writer and a fake news website known for failed fact checks.  On top of that we happen to be black and communicate with other blacks daily. You don't. Black support is not increasing for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The discussion of the number of Black Republicans came from when katsteve said (lol) that it was a "stretch" to say hundreds of Black Republicans.  He also called that "ludicrous"
> 
> By Rasmussen figures of 34% (of 37 million US blacks), that would be 12 MILLION US black Republicans.
> 
> Wanna use Gallup's numbers ?  Their 10% calculates to almost 4 MILLION black Republicans.
> 
> Only thing "ludicrous" in all this, is katsteve even showing up around here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a pathological liar. You stated "thousands of black Republicans oppose AA as discrimination against white people".
> 
> There are not "thousands" of black Republicans in Washington or in government offices in America, you delusional creep.
> 
> And Rasmussen is equally as biased as any other poll out there.
> 
> 
> Pollster: Rasmussen Research has a pro-GOP bias
Click to expand...

You must be the biggest idiot in USMB.  You post an idiotic post, thoroughly refuted by Gallup and Rasmussen both, and then you come back and make the same idiotic post you did initially.

What's the logic here ?  Is it that you were so shamed, that you just had to come back with something ?  Well, yeah, you did that.  And by now repeating your moronic idea about thousands of Black Republicans, (when even Gallup's polling shows MILLIONS of them), all you've accomplished is making yourself look like TWICE the idiot you were before.  

Now it's even more ludicrous that you're even showing up around here.

P S - are you arithmetic challenged ?


----------



## IM2

I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.


----------



## TNHarley

IM2 said:


> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.


He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
No better than him.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.


Well, maybe now that you're done arguing, you could maybe take a little stroll through your local VA hospital and take a good look at the racism consequences of what your illustrious AA has done.

Of course, being the racist that you are, you'll probably approve of this abomination lunacy, but at least you won't be able to claim it doesn't exist.

And my guess is that you've never set foot in one of these hospitals.  You could also check out your state job center office.  Should be a pretty large place.  100 employees or so . All black.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> 1) I do not consider myself a white supremacist and only an idiot would. As I've pointed out China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Zimbabwe - and maybe a dozen or so other countries are homogeneous countries. *NONE of you pretending* to be concerned about white supremacists give a rat's ass about that. You will buy products from those countries and never give them a second thought



Whites live in each one of the countries you mention and in fact all over the world. Whites invaded what is now north and south America. If you want to live in an all white country, take your racist ass back to Europe. You post makes no sense but you really think you're making a well thought out intellectual defense. Put down The Mantra, stop reading Camp of the Saints, and cancel your subscription to American Renaissance.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
> 
> Interestingly, the current population of the city of Memphis is over 60% black, yet Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black.
Click to expand...

It was 1977, ...as for your "stats", 

Interesting how you say that "Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black".  I guess you didn't bother to check that THERE IS NO Memphis State current faculty, because in 2020,  there is no  Memphis State.  Hasn't been since 1994.


----------



## IM2

TNHarley said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
Click to expand...

Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
> 
> Interestingly, the current population of the city of Memphis is over 60% black, yet Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was 1977, ...as for your "stats",
> 
> Interesting how you say that "Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black".  I guess you didn't bother to check that THERE IS NO Memphis State current faculty, because in 2020,  there is no  Memphis State.  Hasn't been since 1992.
Click to expand...

Yes there is. Now stop trying to play games with words.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
> 
> Interestingly, the current population of the city of Memphis is over 60% black, yet Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was 1977, ...as for your "stats",
> 
> Interesting how you say that "Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black".  I guess you didn't bother to check that THERE IS NO Memphis State current faculty, because in 2020,  there is no  Memphis State.  Hasn't been since 1992.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there is. Now stop trying to play games with words.
Click to expand...

If there is a university called Memphis State, there certainly would be a website, + a wikipedia write up.  So post a link to a university called Memphis State University.  Go ahead


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
Click to expand...

I couldn't care less about you pointing out racism by whites. 
 I'm talking about you denying racism by blacks, such as Affirmative Action for example.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
> 
> Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
> 
> What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
> 
> Even YOU should know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is relevant to 2020.  Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist.  Affirmative Action does.
Click to expand...


Who said a single word about slavery? As far as Jim Crow, 
you are nuts if you believe that there was no lingering impact 
of Crow on people who are still living that were subjected to i
to it. Just as some living people in your age group benefitted from it's practice.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way back never. And do you ever remember being offered AA and a job? It's illegal for an employer to say you were hired because of race. That fool really needs to quit lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. I guess if a person repeats a lie enough to themselves it becomes their reality.
> 
> I never got any job because of  being black, I was at the company that I retired from long enough to go from being 1 of 2 blacks in my entire  division covering 6 states, to seeing more minority hires over time but the majority of them in later years were middle easterners and Pakistanis, which was fine, and I interviewed and made decisions to hire some of them myself.
> 
> But I can assure you that I have living older relatives and friends who were denied quite a few jobs, because they were.
Click to expand...

You keep talking about older blacks being denied jobs long ago, because they were black, while ignoring whites being denied jobs because they're white, right NOW.


----------



## TNHarley

IM2 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
Click to expand...

That isnt all you do. But you have proven time and time again you have the awareness if a dead fly


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
> 
> Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
> 
> What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
> 
> Even YOU should know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is relevant to 2020.  Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist.  Affirmative Action does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said a single word about slavery? As far as Jim Crow,
> you are nuts if you believe that there was no lingering impact
> of Crow on people who are still living that were subjected to i
> to it. Just as some living people in your age group benefitted from it's practice.
Click to expand...

Are you crazy ? How would I benefit from Jim Crow ?  It ended when AA began in 1961.  I was 15 years old.

Even if I had been older, I don't see how I could have benefitted from J Crow.  That idea is downright weird.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I do not consider myself a white supremacist and only an idiot would. As I've pointed out China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Zimbabwe - and maybe a dozen or so other countries are homogeneous countries. *NONE of you pretending* to be concerned about white supremacists give a rat's ass about that. You will buy products from those countries and never give them a second thought
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites live in each one of the countries you mention and in fact all over the world. Whites invaded what is now north and south America. If you want to live in an all white country, take your racist ass back to Europe. You post makes no sense but you really think you're making a well thought out intellectual defense. Put down The Mantra, stop reading Camp of the Saints, and cancel your subscription to American Renaissance.
Click to expand...


No experience to that which you allude.  Let's fix your ignorance, starting today:

*China* -  "_92% of the Chinese population and more than 97% of the Taiwanese population are Han_."

*Japan* is 98 percent Japanese with 0 percent immigration

Japan Demographics Profile 2019

*North Korea* -  According to _The World Factbook_, North Korea is racially homogeneous and contains a small Chinese community and a few ethnic Japanese.[3] The 2008 census listed two nationalities: Korean (99.998%)

Demographics of North Korea - Wikipedia

*South Korea * "_the ethnicity is listed as homogenous - meaning the population is over 99% Korean in ethnic background_."

http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/south-korea-population/

*Zimbabwe* -  99.4 percent black

Zimbabwe Demographics Profile 2019

Now that I have shown you to be an ignorant liar and a raging racist once again, I can go take a nap.  Thanks for the other leads too, BTW.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
Click to expand...


You aren't racist against whites?  All anyone has to do is disagree with you and they become Hitler incarnate.  Dude, you're the most racist individual I've ever come across and I knew people like Hosea Williams, Al Sharpton, David Duke, Tom Metzger and many others PERSONALLY  (like sit at the table and argue this stuff face to face personally.)  *NONE* of them could hold a candle to you.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
> 
> Interestingly, the current population of the city of Memphis is over 60% black, yet Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was 1977, ...as for your "stats",
> 
> Interesting how you say that "Memphis States current faculty is about 15% black".  I guess you didn't bother to check that THERE IS NO Memphis State current faculty, because in 2020,  there is no  Memphis State.  Hasn't been since 1992.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes there is. Now stop trying to play games with words.
Click to expand...

Aren't you the guy who said

1.  he was " done arguing" ?

2.  Who I asked if you were a US military veteran ?

3.   Didn't answer my question ?


----------



## Prof.Lunaphile

IM2 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
Click to expand...

The problem is that your "speaking out against," is always ad hominem attacks, and does not parse the arguments with reasoned counter arguments. You are typical of the black people on the internet in that you have learned a few all-purpose shut-down comments that you think mean you win the argument.

You aren't getting anywhere - no white person is changing their mind about the intelligence of black people, because of your participation here. You are the typical stupid black that needs to be banned for trolling.


----------



## MizMolly

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same can be said of black women or black men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  According to you all, all we have to do is be black and quality jobs which none of us are qualified for fall into our laps like manna from heaven.
> 
> Also if the same can be said of black women & women, that allegedly (or presumably) all or some were never going to get the job anyway, then what the hell are you all complaining about when stating that white men are getting screwed out of jobs?  Either black people are not getting jobs that they never were going to get anyway (that you all should be okay with) or we're taking all of the jobs and thereby screwing white people out of 'their' jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went back and got a degree when I was 50. Nobody handed me anything and I never complained about it. I worked hard, studied hard and earned every damn thing I ever got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you, that's certainly something to be proud of.  And when women of color do the same thing, either earlier in life or later in life such as yourself, they are not entitled to use that degree that they worked so hard for to obtain a coveted job that helps them with upward mobility without being accused of screwing white people out of jobs?
Click to expand...

Bullshit. I went back and got my degree where there were many black women who did get the jobs they applied for after getting theirs. You ASSume too much. I didn’t get the fist jobs I applied for after graduating either.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.


More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you read the first two posts in the OP?
> 
> 
> 
> I did and I just went back and read them again.  What did I miss?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My bad.  I was focused on another thread... the one I started.  I started a separate thread, backed it up with the facts and cannot get people focused enough to talk about one subject.
> 
> Acknowledging irrefutable facts don't make me anything IMO.  When I defend one side, I'm a race traitor; if I speak out against another, I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> My position is that I don't see anything different from either side.  BOTH sides are being duped.  At the end of the day, the solutions both sides proffer only empower government and steal our Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless I'm mistaken, because I'll admit I haven't read a significant enough portion of your posts to be 100% certain, it's not the statements you made, it's the implication which I got the impression you not only agreed with, but would further as an agenda if possible.
> 
> For example while the truth of the following statements are the same, the message they convey is quite different:
> 
> "America was founded by white people for white people"
> 
> versus​"America was founded by white people for the sole benefit of white people"​The first statement implies what the second statement unequivocally states - that America was founded, by whites, was meant for whites and that all others have no place here, except in a subservient capacity.  And both statements are different than even this statement
> 
> "The people who settled America were white and intended that the nation be established for their sole benefit, that of other whites and all of their decedants"​This last statement reads like something in a history book.  It's giving an accounting of an event and it's significance.
> 
> The reason I asked how you can make the statement you did and not feel that it comes across as racist or as a white supramacist is because it was not a stand alone statement, you had it coupled with your comments about the displeasure that so many white males apparently have towards affirmative action and the belief that because of AA "white men are getting screwed out of jobs".
> 
> Believe me I know how contentious this topic is which is why I tried coming up with the merger analogy that might make sense if one is viewing the topic as a business problem that a company/employer has to resolve fairly, however the fact remains that the distribution of opportunites was never fair to begin with, white males have dominated the job market for centuries.  What their true gripe concerns in actuality is having to share, or as I have had it explained to me is the fear and anxiety that accompanies a perceived loss of power as women and minorities enter domains which have traditionally been exclusively theirs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them.  The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
> 
> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered.  You cannot criminalize Liberty.  You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee.  We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else.  We are a free market economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If anybody is owed anything from race, it is white people, who should get $$$$$$$ in reparations, to compensate them for 6 decades of discrimination mistreatment in affirmative action.
> 
> This should not be paid from the govt though.  It should be paid from the private pockets of those guilty of pushing and supporting AA.  Example: katsteve, IM2, NVM.
Click to expand...

LOL


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken
> 
> * Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says *
> By DAVID G. SAVAGE
> May 19, 1987
> 12 AM
> Times Staff Writer
> WASHINGTON —
> 
> Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, *the Supreme Court *ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.
> 
> In two unanimous decisions, *the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance*.
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.
> 
> But, *in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group*. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.
> 
> The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and _a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”_
> 
> “This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.
> 
> _*“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said*_.
> 
> The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.
> 
> In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.
> 
> Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.
> 
> “Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.
> 
> Dilemma for Jews
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.
> 
> “The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
> 
> Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”
> 
> The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
> Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what a great article. Trouble is it's irrelevant to what I said.  What the creeps at Memphis State did had nothing to do with law.  It was just a result of how they chose to dispense assistantships.  All to blacks, and no one else.
> 
> This is common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article contradicts what you said and is current case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it looks like you wouldn't qualify for a job that requires intelligence.
Click to expand...

Every position I've held in the last 30 years of my career requires intelligence among other specific skillsets.  



protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're mistaken
> 
> * Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says *
> By DAVID G. SAVAGE
> May 19, 1987
> 12 AM
> Times Staff Writer
> WASHINGTON —
> 
> Expanding the scope of the nation’s civil rights laws, *the Supreme Court *ruled Monday that Jews, Arabs and others who suffer discrimination based on their “ancestry” are protected under statutes barring racial discrimination.
> 
> In two unanimous decisions, *the justices concluded that Congress in the original 1866 Civil Rights Act intended not only to protect blacks but also immigrants and others who suffer because of their nationality or appearance*.
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish and Arab groups, who filed common appeals to the high court, praised the rulings as an enlightened attack on social discrimination.
> 
> But, *in practical terms, the rulings’ main beneficiary may be Latinos, the nation’s second-largest minority group*. Courts have been divided over whether Latinos are covered by all federal civil rights statutes.
> 
> The 1866 law said that its coverage applied to those who were not “white citizens,” and _a federal appeals court covering the Western states had ruled that light-skinned persons of Mexican ancestry were not protected because they are “white.”_
> 
> “This Supreme Court ruling puts that issue to rest,” said Antonia Hernandez, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund in Los Angeles. She predicted that the law will be especially valuable in challenging discrimination related to the new immigration law.
> 
> _*“We see this as a major victory that greatly expands civil rights protections for Hispanics,” Hernandez said*_.
> 
> The two cases before the high court stemmed from the spray-painting of anti-Semitic and Nazi slogans and symbols on a synagogue in Silver Spring, Md., and the loss of tenure by a professor at St. Francis College of Loretto, Pa., who was a U.S. citizen born in Iraq.
> 
> In the first case, a federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., had dismissed the congregation’s civil rights suit against the men who desecrated the synagogue on the grounds that Jews are not a separate race. In the second case, an appeals court in Philadelphia allowed the suit by the Arab professor, Majid Ghaidan Al-Khazraji, after concluding that he may have suffered from discrimination based on his ancestry.
> 
> Justice Byron R. White, writing for the court, pointed out that the term “race” in the 19th Century was more akin to what today might be considered “nationality.” During the 1866 debate, lawmakers referred to the “German race,” the “Scandinavian race” and the “Anglo-Saxon race,” he noted.
> 
> “Based on the history of Section 1981 (of the Civil Rights Act), we have little trouble in concluding that Congress intended to protect from discrimination identifiable classes of persons who are subjected to intentional discrimination solely because of their ancestry or ethnic characteristics,” White wrote.
> 
> Dilemma for Jews
> 
> Lawyers for Jewish groups said that the case posed a dilemma because they do not want to foster the myth that Jews are a separate race.
> 
> “The court has clearly vindicated the right of Arabs and Jewish plaintiffs to seek relief under federal civil rights laws, without crossing the lines to declare they are members of a separate race,” said Gregg Levy, an attorney representing the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith.
> 
> Abdeen Jabara, president of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, said the decision “recognizes that Arab-Americans have been subject to a certain degree of racism in the U.S. This case is so important because it says that racism directed at any individual because of his ancestry, religion or origin is as odious as racism based on his skin color.”
> 
> The cases are Shaare Tefila Congregation vs. Cobb, 85-2156, and St. Francis College vs. Al-Khazraji, 85-2169.
> Civil Rights Laws Cover All Ethnic Groups, Court Says​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, what a great article. Trouble is it's irrelevant to what I said.  What the creeps at Memphis State did had nothing to do with law.  It was just a result of how they chose to dispense assistantships.  All to blacks, and no one else.
> 
> This is common.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The article contradicts what you said and is current case law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, it looks like you wouldn't qualify for a job that requires intelligence.  As I just told you, all that article does is say who can be eligible for AA, not who has to be.  If the administrators wish to define their program to include certain groups within those the article cites, they may do that.
> 
> The article really just says certain groups CAN be included. That's all.  Doesn't contradict anything I've said.  You get a lot of things wrong.  Hope you're not working in any kind of civil defense occupation, or fundamental utilities.
Click to expand...

Your comment above serves as proof of your lack of understanding of how our laws and legal system works.  While prior to this ruling the courts had been divided on whether or not ethnic groups were covered by the various civil rights statutes, the Supreme Court  settled the question when in it's ruling stipulated that ethnic groups *ARE *covered.  They always had been, going back to when the law was first passed however the question of whether or not they were was unsettled until the Supreme Court weighed in with this ruling.

And it doesn't matter how many things I get wrong, I still get more things right than you ever will if for no other reason than when I fail at something that is important to me, then I keep trying until I get it right or at least improve.  Unlike you, who simply gives up and then spends the rest of your life crying, whining and blaming your superiors for your lack of opportunities and miserable existence.  I've never seen anyone make so many excuses and blame so many other people for the things that they've been unable to achieve in life.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> 1) I do not consider myself a white supremacist and only an idiot would. As I've pointed out China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Zimbabwe - and maybe a dozen or so other countries are homogeneous countries. *NONE of you pretending* to be concerned about white supremacists give a rat's ass about that. You will buy products from those countries and never give them a second thought


None of those countries you've mentioned are white so why did you mention them instead of nations that are predominantly white?  I don't see any connection between your first statement and purchasing products from other countries as it pertains to white supremacy.


Porter Rockwell said:


> 2) *IF* you had faithfully studied my objections to the 14th Amendment, you would understand by now that the 14th Amendment promised a false kind of forced "_equality"_ between the races.


The 14th amendment was passed to rectify the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court.  Even though the slaves had been freed they had no legal rights as this decision ruled that as people of African descent they could not be citizens

When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. It was a victory that was a long time coming.

The ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868 transformed national belonging, and made African Americans, and indeed all those born on U.S. soil, citizens. Isaiah Wears, a veteran of the abolitionist movement, explained shortly after its passage the rights that he and other African Americans expected to thus enjoy: not only the right to vote and to select representatives, but also “_the right of residence_.”

The right of residence — to remain unmolested in the territory of the nation — was urgent in Wears’ view. How was it that a right that today many Americans take for granted was so urgently sought in 1868? Black Americans had lived for nearly half a century in a legal limbo. No law defined the rights of people who were no longer slaves. Freedom did not guarantee rights, nor it did not make them citizens. Caught in a debate over their status, they lived under the threat of colonization, a scheme that sought to remove them from the nation.

By the 1820s, the forces against them were formidable. Colonization societies organized to pressure black people to relocate, to Africa, Canada or the Caribbean. So-called black laws imposed restrictions on daily life, regulating work, family and sociability. The overall objective was removal — or what was variably termed self-deportation, exile or banishment. Black political leaders explained in 1831 they were under threat “by every artifice to render their situation intolerable here, as to compel them to emigrate.” Many state legislatures, north and south, were at work making the U.S. a place where black people had no future.

Removal relied upon coercion. Oppressive laws aimed to pressure African Americans to resettle elsewhere. Some lawmakers went further and proposed removal by force, threatening former slaves with re-enslavement and compulsory exile if they refused to relocate. Such was the case in 1832 Maryland when legislator Octavius Taney, brother of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, proposed a statute that would “facilitate the removal of the free persons of color from our state, and from the United States.” Taney assumed that black people were not citizens, and thus without rights to resist removal.

You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time. See our Privacy Policy for further details.
African Americans took such threats seriously, and with good reason. Proposals for their removal looked a lot like the Indian Removal of the 1830s. Black activists understood that tens of thousands of Native Americans had been forcibly relocated from the southeastern U.S., sent west to Indian Territory. During an 1831 convention, they explained how proponents of colonization stood “in the same attitude toward our colored population, as Georgia does to the Cherokee.” If state authorities could relocate Native peoples, the fate of black Americans might very well be the same.

Court rulings only added to a sense of urgency. Most notoriously, the 1857 Supreme Court in _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ had declared that no black person could be a citizen of the U.S. At stake was Dred Scott’s freedom and whether he could sue for it in a federal court. He could not, Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded. But Taney went further, holding that the Constitution included no protections for free African Americans, thus leaving the individual states at liberty to regulate such people as they saw fit. This gave further license to removal schemes, forced and otherwise.

But on one point black activists agreed: They _were_ citizens, as a matter of birthright.
At the 1855 National Colored Convention, delegates gathered as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.” They insisted upon birthright: “By birth, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are citizens.” This refrain was repeated, in conventions, in the black press and in pamphlets. Black activists promoted birthright as the standard by which their belonging should be measured.

Dramatic events made it possible for birthright to gain a full hearing. The Civil War and the emancipation of some four million slaves moved the issue to center stage in Congress. There, lawmakers worked with a long view in mind, asking who African Americans would be before the Constitution going forward. The first answer came in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Birthright citizenship became law.

More, however, was necessary. Some worried that a mere act of Congress was vulnerable to future lawmakers who might rethink the question and amend the law. Others opined that Congress might not have the authority to define citizenship at all. The remedy for these uncertainties was a constitutional amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the individual states that provided for birthright citizenship. The result was section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868 and guaranteeing to black Americans — and all people born or naturalized in the United States — the constitutional protection against removal.

Just months later, in January 1869, Isaiah Wears spoke on behalf of African American political leaders from across the country, heralding the advent of an era in which the “right to residence” would be protected. There were many struggles ahead for black Americans over civil and political rights. But one matter was settled. Gone were schemes that proposed to force their removal from the nation.

African American struggles of the 1800s bequeathed to those born in the 21st century the basis for the right to be free from removal, exile or banishment. The terms of the very same 14th Amendment are also today the subject of a new debate, one that asks whether birthright doesn’t too generously extend citizenship to all those born in the U.S. This pre-history of the Amendment reveals how, in the 19th century, when citizenship was loosely defined, racism could determine who enjoyed constitutional rights. Thousands of black Americans were left to live under an 
ever-present threat of removal. The story of their fight for the “right to residence” is a cautionary tale for our own time.

How the 14th Amendment's Promise of Birthright Citizenship Redefined America​


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If people really care about what another poster thinks, they should ASK them. The real deal is, only whites could be citizens and in most early state constitutions you had to be white and Christian in order hold elective office.
> 
> 
> 
> If I asked you if you are a white supremacist would you say that you are?  Because your comments indicate that you are whether you're able to see that or not.  What other reason is there for you continuing to go back to the statement that only whites could be citizens and your feverent objection to and declaration that the 14th Amendment was never lawfully ratified if not due to the fact that you object to non-whites having been granted citizenship and having the same U.S. Constitutional rights and protections as citizens that whites enjoy?  I can't fathom another reason for this although I will acknowledge that you seemed to point to a comment made by another poster that the term "white supremacist" is considered a deragatory term and that white supremacists are considered pretty much a fringe element.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> OTOH, people from all over the world poured into the United States in order to take advantage of economic opportunities *willingly* offered. You cannot criminalize Liberty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What economic opportunites were willingly offered to people African descent?  And do you think the lawful denial of liberty does to people?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You cannot (constitutionally) force any employer to hire any particular employee. We don't owe the black people jobs or anything else. We are a free market economy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So how are white men getting screwed out of jobs if they were never entitled to them in the first place under the free market system?
> 
> And affirmative action doesn't force companies to do anything other than to "disregard" race, national origin, religion, etc. in hiring and other areas of employment (promotions, etc.).  In other words it provides a statutory cause of action for discrimination based on any protected class violations.  This isn't a volation of the U.S. Constitution although a company could possibly be in violation of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause
> 
> The *Equal Protection Clause* is a clause from the text of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws".
> 
> A primary motivation for this clause was to validate the equality provisions contained in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which guaranteed that all citizens would have the guaranteed right to equal protection by law. As a whole, the Fourteenth Amendment marked a large shift in American constitutionalism, by applying substantially more constitutional restrictions against the states than had applied before the Civil War.
> 
> The meaning of the Equal Protection Clause has been the subject of much debate, and inspired the well-known phrase "Equal Justice Under Law". This clause was the basis for _Brown v. Board of Education_ (1954), the Supreme Court decision that helped to dismantle racial segregation, and also the basis for many other decisions rejecting discrimination against, and bigotry towards people belonging to various groups.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WOW!  Is this what your liberal fake news media has been feeding you ?  This is incredible.  You display a total lack of knowledge of what AA is.
> 
> AA is exactly the Opposite of what you said it is.  NO, AA most certainly does not "disregard" race.  It regards it, makes choices based on who is of what race.  I can't believe you don't know that, or that your head is so twisted, that you could actually believe what you just said.
> 
> As for Equal Protection of the Law, that is exactly what AA does NOT do.  It is what AA violates, by placing one race ahead of another.
> 
> Man, people in this forum are messed up, whether they are lying or actually believe anything they hear.  Liberals are crazy.
Click to expand...

The extent to which you are unaware of how ignorant and uneducated you are is simply mind-boggling.  Your legal analysis on both affirmative action and the 14th amendment is grossly inaccurate.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> Stupid question.
> In any area that has a substantial number of minorities, there will be a large majority of them working in any govt agency, despite them being small in number relative to whites.
> 
> If you pick a place that has few or no minorities living there, then of course in that place there would be few minorities employed. Duh!
> 
> None of that excuses the fact that in many, if not most, VA hospitals, minorities are grossly overrepresented among staff. Dark doctors. Light patients.


There is no such thing as a stupid question.  Is that how to talk to your music students or all they all white with the same mind set and perspectives as you?

My question was to illustrate that you constantly make statements, without qualifiers, that are patently untrue.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> 
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PREACH!
> 
> There is proof white women benefitted from AA. Funny how white people will declare how it's certain that every black person has benefited from AA, but when it's shown how whites have there is no proof or "Hispanics" continually post fact less bullshit about how it's a very small number. Numerous studies and years of labor statistics show that 100's of millions of white women have benefitted from AA. Opinions from dementia addled fake Hispanics and white women who have benefitted from AA doesn't change this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Absolutely no proof. I never said blacks benefitted most. EVERYONE should get what they want through hard work, not based on race or gender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What do you consider proof?  Because you have made this statement numerous times before and I have personally provided you with U.S. Department of Labor reports & statistics that show how they gathered and tracked the number of women and minorities in mangerial positions after the passage of affirmative action.  They also gathered data from discrimination lawsuits instituted after affirmative action provided a statutory cause of action (right to sue)
> 
> So if you don't consider goverment reports and documentation, stats culled from lawsuits, etc. as proof, what exactly constitutes acceptable proof to you?  And what's your degree in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reports & stats are only as reliable as the honesty and objectivity of the reporters of them.  Many are totally fraudulent, reflecting the bias of the reporters.  This easily can include govt reports, as many govt reporters are biased.
> 
> By far, the most reliable evidence is your eyes and ears.  If a report says a community is economically healthy, but you see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, your eyes deliver the correct conclusion, not the fraudulent written report.
> 
> Likewise, one can easily, visually ascertain the AA racial discrimination in VA hospitals, and other govt agencies.
Click to expand...

Wow, you're stupid and obviously know nothing about working with data or business intelligence.  And you all will go to any lengths to discount hard cold facts when they are not in your favor while stretching the thinnest shreds of innuendo or other unsubstantiated nonsense and holding it up as proof.

On the other hand, eyewitness testimony (eyes & ears) is notoriously unreliable.  Photographs, audio, video and electronic documentation can all serve to bolster eyewitness or first hand testimony.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MizMolly said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> 
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Same can be said of black women or black men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?  According to you all, all we have to do is be black and quality jobs which none of us are qualified for fall into our laps like manna from heaven.
> 
> Also if the same can be said of black women & women, that allegedly (or presumably) all or some were never going to get the job anyway, then what the hell are you all complaining about when stating that white men are getting screwed out of jobs?  Either black people are not getting jobs that they never were going to get anyway (that you all should be okay with) or we're taking all of the jobs and thereby screwing white people out of 'their' jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no proof that white women have benefitted  from AA
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> While some white women have benefitted from AA, they are a tiny minority of all US white women.  Overwhelming majority (perhaps as much as 99%) have suffered from AA, by being discriminated against in it, and their white male husbands, fathers, etc being discriminated by it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70% of Americans do not have a college degree, so let's just say half of that 70% which is 35% consists of these poor pitiful and jobless white women blaming affirmative action for denying them a job that they were *never going to get anyway *because they're *NOT QUALIFIED* for managerial level positions because they have a minimal/no education.
> 
> Affirmative action didn't do that to them, their own laziness, lack of ambition or lack of ability (includes finanial as well which is unfortunate but not the fault of AA) is the reason why they're losing out on jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I went back and got a degree when I was 50. Nobody handed me anything and I never complained about it. I worked hard, studied hard and earned every damn thing I ever got.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well good for you, that's certainly something to be proud of.  And when women of color do the same thing, either earlier in life or later in life such as yourself, they are not entitled to use that degree that they worked so hard for to obtain a coveted job that helps them with upward mobility without being accused of screwing white people out of jobs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I went back and got my degree where there were many black women who did get the jobs they applied for after getting theirs. You ASSume too much. I didn’t get the fist jobs I applied for after graduating either.
Click to expand...

Bullshit what?  What do you have to complain about?  And why on earth do you think you're entitled to get the very first job that you apply for, just because you obtained a degree?  Particularly at your age with age discrimination being what it is?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MizMolly said:


> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.


You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?


----------



## IM2

Prof.Lunaphiles said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that your "speaking out against," is always ad hominem attacks, and does not parse the arguments with reasoned counter arguments. You are typical of the black people on the internet in that you have learned a few all-purpose shut-down comments that you think mean you win the argument.
> 
> You aren't getting anywhere - no white person is changing their mind about the intelligence of black people, because of your participation here. You are the typical stupid black that needs to be banned for trolling.
Click to expand...


You can't handle the truth.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?
Click to expand...

This man is an idiot. Students pick classes and we all know that.


----------



## IM2

TNHarley said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isnt all you do. But you have proven time and time again you have the awareness if a dead fly
Click to expand...

I respond to the racism directed at me appropriately.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

IM2 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isnt all you do. But you have proven time and time again you have the awareness if a dead fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I respond to the racism directed at me appropriately.
Click to expand...


And you are consistent.

Bullshit all the time.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This man is an idiot. Students pick classes and we all know that.
Click to expand...

MizMolly is a man?  Had no idea.  Still doesn't explain the denial, resentment and bitterness.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

IM2 said:


> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That isnt all you do. But you have proven time and time again you have the awareness if a dead fly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I respond to the racism directed at me appropriately.
Click to expand...

I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.

Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't racist against whites?  All anyone has to do is disagree with you and they become Hitler incarnate.  Dude, you're the most racist individual I've ever come across and I knew people like Hosea Williams, Al Sharpton, David Duke, Tom Metzger and many others PERSONALLY  (like sit at the table and argue this stuff face to face personally.)  *NONE* of them could hold a candle to you.
Click to expand...


You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This man is an idiot. Students pick classes and we all know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MizMolly is a man?  Had no idea.  Still doesn't explain the denial, resentment and bitterness.
Click to expand...

I thought you were talking about unprotected. MizMolly is a white female. You know, the people who have benefited the most from AA.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you're not a black Republican unless you've been lying about your racial makeup among other things, but that's not the point.
> 
> You keep crying right here on U.S. Message Board about how affirmative action allegedly ruined your plans to pursue a career as a city planner and somehow prevented you from continuing your grad school studies due to its '*anti-WHITE*' discriminatory nature.  As a matter of fact I was initially confused for a while because I have never heard a minority complain that due to affirmative action being anti-white, that they, as a minority were being discriminated against.
> 
> I still don't understand how affirmative action discriminates against you as a hispanic since hispanics are a covered protected class as well.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  SOMETIMES Hispanics are covered. Not always. At Memphis State University *ONLY blacks received assistantships*.  2 Hispanics, 2 Asians, and 7 non-black women all were denied, in addition to scores of white men.
> 
> Memphis State Univ. liberals administering these assistantships, were embedded in deranged guilt over slavery, despite having nothing to do with it.
> 
> Even if Hispanics were to be included, I still would not have gotten one, because of AA, since I never fill out an AA questionnaire, and never will.  I could not degrade myself that way.  It is something for people with no self-respect.
> 
> When I lived in California, I was offered AA and a job requiring speaking Spanish, and filling out an AA form. I was the only applicant who spoke Spanish (of 6 applicants) I refused the AA and the job. They never filled it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What year was this at Memphis State that "only blacks" received assistantships?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Way back never. And do you ever remember being offered AA and a job? It's illegal for an employer to say you were hired because of race. That fool really needs to quit lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True. I guess if a person repeats a lie enough to themselves it becomes their reality.
> 
> I never got any job because of  being black, I was at the company that I retired from long enough to go from being 1 of 2 blacks in my entire  division covering 6 states, to seeing more minority hires over time but the majority of them in later years were middle easterners and Pakistanis, which was fine, and I interviewed and made decisions to hire some of them myself.
> 
> But I can assure you that I have living older relatives and friends who were denied quite a few jobs, because they were.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep talking about older blacks being denied jobs long ago, because they were black, while ignoring whites being denied jobs because they're white, right NOW.
Click to expand...


The fact that the blacks you speak of lived during Jim Crow, and are STILL LIVING, and were AFFECTED for life because of Jim Crow is no different. 

And department of labor statistics prove that the white population, generally is NOT being denied jobs. And you have yet to prove otherwise. 

Nor can you.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> Prof.Lunaphiles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem is that your "speaking out against," is always ad hominem attacks, and does not parse the arguments with reasoned counter arguments. You are typical of the black people on the internet in that you have learned a few all-purpose shut-down comments that you think mean you win the argument.
> 
> You aren't getting anywhere - no white person is changing their mind about the intelligence of black people, because of your participation here. You are the typical stupid black that needs to be banned for trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't handle the truth.
Click to expand...

There are many men and women who are employed who laugh and mock others. Others who may had an issue or two. And others who in the tapestry of their lives have/had done much more then the ones who mocked them in the fields of work they were/are in. We have Miles and Miles to go. To many people who screw with others when empowered and to many people believing in the tripe of the empowered.  True heroes in everything we do in life are many times buried under the ones glamorized. We see it every day.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I'm honestly not trying to be mean to you (this time) but there is no such thing as an 'AA' questionnaire aka job application.  You are free to answer the EEOC questions or not, you're not penalized for not doing so.
> 
> So you turned down a job because in your mind was an 'AA' job and you're too proud to accept a job based on anything other their your suitability for it, right?  You're an idiot if that truly is the reason you turned down the job because as you relay the story, you were the best qualified candidate for the position.  Hell the only qualified candidate if speaking Spanish was a requirement and you were the only one who spoke it.
> 
> So what was the real reason you turned down the job because your story just doesn't fly.  If you needed the job and turned it down just so you could complain about getting screwed over by affirmative action, then you're your own worse enemy.
> 
> But lastly, if you didn't fill out the EEOC questions but they still offered you the job, how is it that you don't recognize that as a situation of having obtained it on your own merits, presumably?  Or do you think they made assumptions about you because you speak Spanish?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
> 
> Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
> 
> What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
> 
> Even YOU should know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is relevant to 2020.  Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist.  Affirmative Action does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said a single word about slavery? As far as Jim Crow,
> you are nuts if you believe that there was no lingering impact
> of Crow on people who are still living that were subjected to i
> to it. Just as some living people in your age group benefitted from it's practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you crazy ? How would I benefit from Jim Crow ?  It ended when AA began in 1961.  I was 15 years old.
> 
> Even if I had been older, I don't see how I could have benefitted from J Crow.  That idea is downright weird.
Click to expand...





 Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.

No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".

Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"


Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.

And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"



And no, I'm not "crazy".

YOU are.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just joking ? If you don't fill out an AA questionnaire, you are disqualified, same as being a white male.
> 
> Your talk about me turning down jobs because of AA, shows just what I've been saying for years in this forum.  That the people who accept AA discrimination in their favor, are a bunch of worthless lowlifes who don't know the meaning of the word self,--respect.  All you do is grab at anything you can get, regardless of the moral ramifications.  You all are about the equivalent of a bunch of wild dogs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
> 
> What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
> 
> Even YOU should know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of that is relevant to 2020.  Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist.  Affirmative Action does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said a single word about slavery? As far as Jim Crow,
> you are nuts if you believe that there was no lingering impact
> of Crow on people who are still living that were subjected to i
> to it. Just as some living people in your age group benefitted from it's practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you crazy ? How would I benefit from Jim Crow ?  It ended when AA began in 1961.  I was 15 years old.
> 
> Even if I had been older, I don't see how I could have benefitted from J Crow.  That idea is downright weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you benefit?
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are affected by it"
> 
> So, "the sons and daughters of victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> 
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy" YOU are.
Click to expand...

As you can see, protectionist believes in Teflon History. For him, jim crow just magically disappeared  when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. But here he is arguing the exact same argument jim crow whites argued against affirmative action.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> AA never would have been necessary if workplace discrimination had not existed. 50+ years of it does not anywhere near equalize centuries of "white males only need apply" policies.
> 
> What kind of "dogs" would maintain such policies for so long?
> 
> Even YOU should know that.
> 
> 
> 
> None of that is relevant to 2020.  Jim Crow and slavery no longer exist.  Affirmative Action does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said a single word about slavery? As far as Jim Crow,
> you are nuts if you believe that there was no lingering impact
> of Crow on people who are still living that were subjected to i
> to it. Just as some living people in your age group benefitted from it's practice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you crazy ? How would I benefit from Jim Crow ?  It ended when AA began in 1961.  I was 15 years old.
> 
> Even if I had been older, I don't see how I could have benefitted from J Crow.  That idea is downright weird.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How would you benefit?
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are affected by it"
> 
> So, "the sons and daughters of victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> 
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy" YOU are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you can see, protectionist believes in Teflon History. For him, jim crow just magically disappeared  when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. But here he is arguing the exact same argument jim crow whites argued against affirmative action.
Click to expand...


Precisely. His name should be "Deflectionist"


----------



## TNHarley

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't racist against whites?  All anyone has to do is disagree with you and they become Hitler incarnate.  Dude, you're the most racist individual I've ever come across and I knew people like Hosea Williams, Al Sharpton, David Duke, Tom Metzger and many others PERSONALLY  (like sit at the table and argue this stuff face to face personally.)  *NONE* of them could hold a candle to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
Click to expand...

You don't know what racism is.
Maybe thats why you dont realize you are one.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1) I do not consider myself a white supremacist and only an idiot would. As I've pointed out China, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, and Zimbabwe - and maybe a dozen or so other countries are homogeneous countries. *NONE of you pretending* to be concerned about white supremacists give a rat's ass about that. You will buy products from those countries and never give them a second thought
> 
> 
> 
> None of those countries you've mentioned are white so why did you mention them instead of nations that are predominantly white?  I don't see any connection between your first statement and purchasing products from other countries as it pertains to white supremacy.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2) *IF* you had faithfully studied my objections to the 14th Amendment, you would understand by now that the 14th Amendment promised a false kind of forced "_equality"_ between the races.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment was passed to rectify the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court.  Even though the slaves had been freed they had no legal rights as this decision ruled that as people of African descent they could not be citizens
> 
> When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. It was a victory that was a long time coming.
> 
> The ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868 transformed national belonging, and made African Americans, and indeed all those born on U.S. soil, citizens. Isaiah Wears, a veteran of the abolitionist movement, explained shortly after its passage the rights that he and other African Americans expected to thus enjoy: not only the right to vote and to select representatives, but also “_the right of residence_.”
> 
> The right of residence — to remain unmolested in the territory of the nation — was urgent in Wears’ view. How was it that a right that today many Americans take for granted was so urgently sought in 1868? Black Americans had lived for nearly half a century in a legal limbo. No law defined the rights of people who were no longer slaves. Freedom did not guarantee rights, nor it did not make them citizens. Caught in a debate over their status, they lived under the threat of colonization, a scheme that sought to remove them from the nation.
> 
> By the 1820s, the forces against them were formidable. Colonization societies organized to pressure black people to relocate, to Africa, Canada or the Caribbean. So-called black laws imposed restrictions on daily life, regulating work, family and sociability. The overall objective was removal — or what was variably termed self-deportation, exile or banishment. Black political leaders explained in 1831 they were under threat “by every artifice to render their situation intolerable here, as to compel them to emigrate.” Many state legislatures, north and south, were at work making the U.S. a place where black people had no future.
> 
> Removal relied upon coercion. Oppressive laws aimed to pressure African Americans to resettle elsewhere. Some lawmakers went further and proposed removal by force, threatening former slaves with re-enslavement and compulsory exile if they refused to relocate. Such was the case in 1832 Maryland when legislator Octavius Taney, brother of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, proposed a statute that would “facilitate the removal of the free persons of color from our state, and from the United States.” Taney assumed that black people were not citizens, and thus without rights to resist removal.
> 
> You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time. See our Privacy Policy for further details.
> African Americans took such threats seriously, and with good reason. Proposals for their removal looked a lot like the Indian Removal of the 1830s. Black activists understood that tens of thousands of Native Americans had been forcibly relocated from the southeastern U.S., sent west to Indian Territory. During an 1831 convention, they explained how proponents of colonization stood “in the same attitude toward our colored population, as Georgia does to the Cherokee.” If state authorities could relocate Native peoples, the fate of black Americans might very well be the same.
> 
> Court rulings only added to a sense of urgency. Most notoriously, the 1857 Supreme Court in _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ had declared that no black person could be a citizen of the U.S. At stake was Dred Scott’s freedom and whether he could sue for it in a federal court. He could not, Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded. But Taney went further, holding that the Constitution included no protections for free African Americans, thus leaving the individual states at liberty to regulate such people as they saw fit. This gave further license to removal schemes, forced and otherwise.
> 
> But on one point black activists agreed: They _were_ citizens, as a matter of birthright.
> At the 1855 National Colored Convention, delegates gathered as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.” They insisted upon birthright: “By birth, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are citizens.” This refrain was repeated, in conventions, in the black press and in pamphlets. Black activists promoted birthright as the standard by which their belonging should be measured.
> 
> Dramatic events made it possible for birthright to gain a full hearing. The Civil War and the emancipation of some four million slaves moved the issue to center stage in Congress. There, lawmakers worked with a long view in mind, asking who African Americans would be before the Constitution going forward. The first answer came in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Birthright citizenship became law.
> 
> More, however, was necessary. Some worried that a mere act of Congress was vulnerable to future lawmakers who might rethink the question and amend the law. Others opined that Congress might not have the authority to define citizenship at all. The remedy for these uncertainties was a constitutional amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the individual states that provided for birthright citizenship. The result was section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868 and guaranteeing to black Americans — and all people born or naturalized in the United States — the constitutional protection against removal.
> 
> Just months later, in January 1869, Isaiah Wears spoke on behalf of African American political leaders from across the country, heralding the advent of an era in which the “right to residence” would be protected. There were many struggles ahead for black Americans over civil and political rights. But one matter was settled. Gone were schemes that proposed to force their removal from the nation.
> 
> African American struggles of the 1800s bequeathed to those born in the 21st century the basis for the right to be free from removal, exile or banishment. The terms of the very same 14th Amendment are also today the subject of a new debate, one that asks whether birthright doesn’t too generously extend citizenship to all those born in the U.S. This pre-history of the Amendment reveals how, in the 19th century, when citizenship was loosely defined, racism could determine who enjoyed constitutional rights. Thousands of black Americans were left to live under an
> ever-present threat of removal. The story of their fight for the “right to residence” is a cautionary tale for our own time.
> 
> How the 14th Amendment's Promise of Birthright Citizenship Redefined America​
Click to expand...



While your post, aimed at me, is quite lengthy it does nothing to address the question you asked me nor the criticisms you seem to have of what I posted.

I mentioned Japan, China, North Korea, etc., etc. because those countries are racially homogeneous.  Why would I do that?  That shows that when we are not talking about the white race, there is nothing wrong or evil with being a homogeneous society. 

Second point:  The 14th Amendment was *illegally ratified*. If the sheeple following Donald Trump ever figured that one out, they would have a field day with you once it was declared null and void:

The Fourteenth Amendment is Unconstitutional - Judge L.H. Perez

https://www.constitution.org/14ll/no14th.htm

Prove Its Real – Fighting to repeal the 14th amendment and restore the original form of government.

What the ratification of the 14th Amendment did was to first create two classes of citizens:

1)  Preamble Citizens - those who had *unalienable* Rights as guaranteed under the Constitution.  Said Rights had been declared inherent, natural, *absolute*, above the law, and irrevocable

2)  14th Amendment citizens - Those who had been made citizens via the 14th having only _privileges and immunities_ (sic)  wherein rights were *not *absolute, natural, inherent, above the law,_ unalienable_, etc. and *could be denied 

And then 
*
3)  The federal government then employed National ID via Socialist Surveillance Numbers ...ooops, "_Social Security Numbers_"  and ultimately National ID made official via the National ID / REAL ID Act so that all persons fall under the purview of the 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights was nullified for its intended purposes.  Today we are all "equal" (albeit a phony equality), but none of us have Rights as per the 14th Amendment.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TNHarley said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm done arguing with these racists about AA and white supremacy. Rockwell is a white supremacist, I've shown that twice. AA has not hurt whites, in fact it has increased white family income. That's a fact that cannot be changed how much protectionist hollers to the contrary. Molly has benefitted more from AA than anyone in this conversation. That to is a fact that will not changed because 3 white losers at USMB whine about having to compete for jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> He is a white supremacist and youbare racist against whites.
> No better than him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except I am not racist against whites. Only a simple minded retard thinks pointing out racism by whites is racist against whites. And that's what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't racist against whites?  All anyone has to do is disagree with you and they become Hitler incarnate.  Dude, you're the most racist individual I've ever come across and I knew people like Hosea Williams, Al Sharpton, David Duke, Tom Metzger and many others PERSONALLY  (like sit at the table and argue this stuff face to face personally.)  *NONE* of them could hold a candle to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
Click to expand...


What I said was not said to Al Sharpton, but I did say it to Hosea Williams face both in a conference room AND on his tv show.  BTW, his show was cancelled at the end of that season because he was like you... calling people racist without justification.

If I had debated Sharpton personally, I definitely would have stated so.  You've called me a mother fucker, a racist, and shit you wouldn't say to my face.  You've been told that I have PM if you have a personal problem with me.  So, not being your son - you should understand that if a real man said what you have to me, they would want to go out behind the woodshed.  That becomes a private matter, not fodder for the board.

That you get to say what you do is unfortunate.  If fairness is white supremacy, I don't give a rat's ass what you think.  What I would call you in return would get me banned here.  That being the case, I'm not "_equal_" to you in society so people should watch what name someone calls another when you live in a glass house.

You eat, live, and breathe the color of your skin.  You should watch what you call every white person that disagrees with you.


----------



## EvilCat Breath

White supremacy is objecting to attacks like this
Woman Burned in Random Bleach Attack in NYC Subway


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> LOL


And when they laugh at this, they should pay double.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Your comment above serves as proof of your lack of understanding of how our laws and legal system works.  While prior to this ruling the courts had been divided on whether or not ethnic groups were covered by the various civil rights statutes, the Supreme Court  settled the question when in it's ruling stipulated that ethnic groups *ARE *covered.  They always had been, going back to when the law was first passed however the question of whether or not they were was unsettled until the Supreme Court weighed in with this ruling.
> 
> And it doesn't matter how many things I get wrong, I still get more things right than you ever will if for no other reason than when I fail at something that is important to me, then I keep trying until I get it right or at least improve.  Unlike you, who simply gives up and then spends the rest of your life crying, whining and blaming your superiors for your lack of opportunities and miserable existence.  I've never seen anyone make so many excuses and blame so many other people for the things that they've been unable to achieve in life.


That's exactly what blacks do, confirmed by their (your) support of Affirmative Action, which is one big, gigantic WHINE/BITCH.  Nobody whines and bitches more than blacks (many of them)

As for Memphis State, they denied Hispanics, Asians and women AA, and gave it only to blacks.  You can disbelieve, or think whatever you want, until you turn blue. Who cares ?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> The 14th amendment was passed to rectify the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court.  Even though the slaves had been freed they had no legal rights as this decision ruled that as people of African descent they could not be citizens
> 
> When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. It was a victory that was a long time coming.
> 
> The ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868 transformed national belonging, and made African Americans, and indeed all those born on U.S. soil, citizens. Isaiah Wears, a veteran of the abolitionist movement, explained shortly after its passage the rights that he and other African Americans expected to thus enjoy: not only the right to vote and to select representatives, but also “_the right of residence_.”
> 
> The right of residence — to remain unmolested in the territory of the nation — was urgent in Wears’ view. How was it that a right that today many Americans take for granted was so urgently sought in 1868? Black Americans had lived for nearly half a century in a legal limbo. No law defined the rights of people who were no longer slaves. Freedom did not guarantee rights, nor it did not make them citizens. Caught in a debate over their status, they lived under the threat of colonization, a scheme that sought to remove them from the nation.
> 
> By the 1820s, the forces against them were formidable. Colonization societies organized to pressure black people to relocate, to Africa, Canada or the Caribbean. So-called black laws imposed restrictions on daily life, regulating work, family and sociability. The overall objective was removal — or what was variably termed self-deportation, exile or banishment. Black political leaders explained in 1831 they were under threat “by every artifice to render their situation intolerable here, as to compel them to emigrate.” Many state legislatures, north and south, were at work making the U.S. a place where black people had no future.
> 
> Removal relied upon coercion. Oppressive laws aimed to pressure African Americans to resettle elsewhere. Some lawmakers went further and proposed removal by force, threatening former slaves with re-enslavement and compulsory exile if they refused to relocate. Such was the case in 1832 Maryland when legislator Octavius Taney, brother of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, proposed a statute that would “facilitate the removal of the free persons of color from our state, and from the United States.” Taney assumed that black people were not citizens, and thus without rights to resist removal.
> 
> You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time. See our Privacy Policy for further details.
> African Americans took such threats seriously, and with good reason. Proposals for their removal looked a lot like the Indian Removal of the 1830s. Black activists understood that tens of thousands of Native Americans had been forcibly relocated from the southeastern U.S., sent west to Indian Territory. During an 1831 convention, they explained how proponents of colonization stood “in the same attitude toward our colored population, as Georgia does to the Cherokee.” If state authorities could relocate Native peoples, the fate of black Americans might very well be the same.
> 
> Court rulings only added to a sense of urgency. Most notoriously, the 1857 Supreme Court in _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ had declared that no black person could be a citizen of the U.S. At stake was Dred Scott’s freedom and whether he could sue for it in a federal court. He could not, Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded. But Taney went further, holding that the Constitution included no protections for free African Americans, thus leaving the individual states at liberty to regulate such people as they saw fit. This gave further license to removal schemes, forced and otherwise.
> 
> But on one point black activists agreed: They _were_ citizens, as a matter of birthright.
> At the 1855 National Colored Convention, delegates gathered as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.” They insisted upon birthright: “By birth, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are citizens.” This refrain was repeated, in conventions, in the black press and in pamphlets. Black activists promoted birthright as the standard by which their belonging should be measured.
> 
> Dramatic events made it possible for birthright to gain a full hearing. The Civil War and the emancipation of some four million slaves moved the issue to center stage in Congress. There, lawmakers worked with a long view in mind, asking who African Americans would be before the Constitution going forward. The first answer came in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Birthright citizenship became law.
> 
> More, however, was necessary. Some worried that a mere act of Congress was vulnerable to future lawmakers who might rethink the question and amend the law. Others opined that Congress might not have the authority to define citizenship at all. The remedy for these uncertainties was a constitutional amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the individual states that provided for birthright citizenship. The result was section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868 and guaranteeing to black Americans — and all people born or naturalized in the United States — the constitutional protection against removal.
> 
> Just months later, in January 1869, Isaiah Wears spoke on behalf of African American political leaders from across the country, heralding the advent of an era in which the “right to residence” would be protected. There were many struggles ahead for black Americans over civil and political rights. But one matter was settled. Gone were schemes that proposed to force their removal from the nation.
> 
> African American struggles of the 1800s bequeathed to those born in the 21st century the basis for the right to be free from removal, exile or banishment. The terms of the very same 14th Amendment are also today the subject of a new debate, one that asks whether birthright doesn’t too generously extend citizenship to all those born in the U.S. This pre-history of the Amendment reveals how, in the 19th century, when citizenship was loosely defined, racism could determine who enjoyed constitutional rights. Thousands of black Americans were left to live under an
> ever-present threat of removal. The story of their fight for the “right to residence” is a cautionary tale for our own time.
> 
> How the 14th Amendment's Promise of Birthright Citizenship Redefined America​


1.  The 14th amendment did not promise birthright citizenship, as the title of your link states. It gave birthright citizenship to the children born here of American citizen parents, and not to the children born here of foreigner parents. Birthright citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, is unconstitutional, and all of it that has been granted should be revoked.

2. Your entire post is invalid, because it contains the faulty term_ "African Americans"._  What you mean is blacks.  There are hundreds of people in the US who are "African Americans", who are white.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Wow, you're stupid and obviously know nothing about working with data or business intelligence.  And you all will go to any lengths to discount hard cold facts when they are not in your favor while stretching the thinnest shreds of innuendo or other unsubstantiated nonsense and holding it up as proof.
> 
> On the other hand, eyewitness testimony (eyes & ears) is notoriously unreliable.  Photographs, audio, video and electronic documentation can all serve to bolster eyewitness or first hand testimony.



So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ? 

Wow, are YOU ever stupid.  Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.

And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.


----------



## MizMolly

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?
Click to expand...

My degree is in drafting and design. Autocad, surveying and blueprints. I work in the Civil Engineering field with my degree. Why would I view more black women in my classes as a negative? I am proud of anyone who furthers their education.


----------



## MizMolly

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This man is an idiot. Students pick classes and we all know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MizMolly is a man?  Had no idea.  Still doesn't explain the denial, resentment and bitterness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I thought you were talking about unprotected. MizMolly is a white female. You know, the people who have benefited the most from AA.
Click to expand...

LOL


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
> 
> Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.


Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> MizMolly is a white female. You know, the people who have benefited the most from AA.


Still pushing that lie. No surprise with someone of your kind of character.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.


Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism.  You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era.  It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you.  You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> There is no such thing as a stupid question.  Is that how to talk to your music students or all they all white with the same mind set and perspectives as you?
> 
> My question was to illustrate that you constantly make statements, without qualifiers, that are patently untrue.


The only thing you illustrate is yourself as a fool >>


----------



## AveryJarhman

Keeping it 100% REAL and Respectful!

"White Supremacy" is a term invented and adopted by America's large FEMALE-dominated, SEGREGATION-minded, INTRA RACIAL DISCRIMINATION & HATE practicing PROBLACK community.

The term "White Supremacy" was developed to instill GUILT, as well as DISTRACT from the core reason the late Gun Violence Homicide and Child Abuse victim Tupac Shakur created his often misinterpreted, much ignored #THUGLIFE #ChildAbuse, Emotional Neglect, Abandonment & Maltreatment AWARENESS-PREVENTION PSA that applies to American & foreign born ppl of ALL AGES & backgrounds!

Sadly, many of the PRO BLACK Americans and their supporters declaring "White Supremacy" is impeding the Quality of Life for Americans of African descent, are the *VERY SAME* apparent emotionally troubled citizens choosing to HATE, INTIMIDATE, BULLY and HARASS free thinking citizens choosing to peacefully pursue *THEIR OWN* unique vision for L, L, (Love) and Happiness! #MentalIllness



 

 

Peace ♥


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> The fact that the blacks you speak of lived during Jim Crow, and are STILL LIVING, and were AFFECTED for life because of Jim Crow is no different.
> 
> And department of labor statistics prove that the white population, generally is NOT being denied jobs. And you have yet to prove otherwise.
> 
> Nor can you.


I don't have to prove it. It is KNOWN, and your lies are laughed at.  Please prove that birds can fly.

Ha ha, Liberals love to throw the word _"prove"_ around, thinking they have some kind of leverage. It does - at making them look ridiculous.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.


 Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"

Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> As you can see, protectionist believes in Teflon History. For him, jim crow just magically disappeared  when Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act. But here he is arguing the exact same argument jim crow whites argued against affirmative action.


Anyone who argues against AA is correct.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> Precisely. His name should be "Deflectionist"


And yours ? >> katstupid.


----------



## AveryJarhman

IM2 said:


> White men are not discriminated against.






 

IM2, how about FREE-THINKING men, are they harmed by RACIAL DISCRIMINATION!

IM2, the larger question: Who is raising & socializing perfectly health newborns maturing into angry, HATEFUL teen & adult citizens like this apparent emotionally troubled adult:

Jesse Lee Peterson gets DRAGGED by #ProBlack Revolutionary Gazi Kodzo:

Click here: Jesse Lee Peterson gets DRAGGED by Black Revolutionary Gazi Kodzo - Streamable

Peace.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> mentioned Japan, China, North Korea, etc., etc. because those countries are racially homogeneous. Why would I do that? That shows that when we are not talking about the white race, there is nothing wrong or evil with being a homogeneous society.


The United States of America is not a homogeneous society, it never has been.  It was established on the premise of white supremacy and during the first 200+ year of it's existence it enforced it's belief in the superiority of the white race and particularly the subservience of the black race by crafting a series of laws, government policies, practices, procedures, standard, societal mores, court rulings, etc. which enforced the original white supremacist beliefs. 

As far as the rest of your comment, your legal analysis sucks as much as protectionists's, not to be rude (to you).  Neither of you seem to understand the difference between "this is what and how I believe things *should *be" and "this is how they are".  _In your opinion_, the 14th amendment was unlawfully ratified.  The fact that other people hold that opinion as well has no effect on reality since as of today, the 14th amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and there are very few options that can be used to remove it but you all are certainly within your rights to try.

Honestly, from the outside looking in, it appears that your beef with the 14th amendment is nothing more than the fact that it provided citizenship status to people of African descent which is why I believe you keep going back to the "America was founded by whites for whites" declaration.  The birthright citizenship that is sometimes exploited not withstanding, it was a good thing for me and my ancestors and detracted nothing from whites.  Unless we're back to the resentment about having to share again?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment was passed to rectify the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court.  Even though the slaves had been freed they had no legal rights as this decision ruled that as people of African descent they could not be citizens
> 
> When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. It was a victory that was a long time coming.
> 
> The ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868 transformed national belonging, and made African Americans, and indeed all those born on U.S. soil, citizens. Isaiah Wears, a veteran of the abolitionist movement, explained shortly after its passage the rights that he and other African Americans expected to thus enjoy: not only the right to vote and to select representatives, but also “_the right of residence_.”
> 
> The right of residence — to remain unmolested in the territory of the nation — was urgent in Wears’ view. How was it that a right that today many Americans take for granted was so urgently sought in 1868? Black Americans had lived for nearly half a century in a legal limbo. No law defined the rights of people who were no longer slaves. Freedom did not guarantee rights, nor it did not make them citizens. Caught in a debate over their status, they lived under the threat of colonization, a scheme that sought to remove them from the nation.
> 
> By the 1820s, the forces against them were formidable. Colonization societies organized to pressure black people to relocate, to Africa, Canada or the Caribbean. So-called black laws imposed restrictions on daily life, regulating work, family and sociability. The overall objective was removal — or what was variably termed self-deportation, exile or banishment. Black political leaders explained in 1831 they were under threat “by every artifice to render their situation intolerable here, as to compel them to emigrate.” Many state legislatures, north and south, were at work making the U.S. a place where black people had no future.
> 
> Removal relied upon coercion. Oppressive laws aimed to pressure African Americans to resettle elsewhere. Some lawmakers went further and proposed removal by force, threatening former slaves with re-enslavement and compulsory exile if they refused to relocate. Such was the case in 1832 Maryland when legislator Octavius Taney, brother of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, proposed a statute that would “facilitate the removal of the free persons of color from our state, and from the United States.” Taney assumed that black people were not citizens, and thus without rights to resist removal.
> 
> You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time. See our Privacy Policy for further details.
> African Americans took such threats seriously, and with good reason. Proposals for their removal looked a lot like the Indian Removal of the 1830s. Black activists understood that tens of thousands of Native Americans had been forcibly relocated from the southeastern U.S., sent west to Indian Territory. During an 1831 convention, they explained how proponents of colonization stood “in the same attitude toward our colored population, as Georgia does to the Cherokee.” If state authorities could relocate Native peoples, the fate of black Americans might very well be the same.
> 
> Court rulings only added to a sense of urgency. Most notoriously, the 1857 Supreme Court in _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ had declared that no black person could be a citizen of the U.S. At stake was Dred Scott’s freedom and whether he could sue for it in a federal court. He could not, Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded. But Taney went further, holding that the Constitution included no protections for free African Americans, thus leaving the individual states at liberty to regulate such people as they saw fit. This gave further license to removal schemes, forced and otherwise.
> 
> But on one point black activists agreed: They _were_ citizens, as a matter of birthright.
> At the 1855 National Colored Convention, delegates gathered as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.” They insisted upon birthright: “By birth, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are citizens.” This refrain was repeated, in conventions, in the black press and in pamphlets. Black activists promoted birthright as the standard by which their belonging should be measured.
> 
> Dramatic events made it possible for birthright to gain a full hearing. The Civil War and the emancipation of some four million slaves moved the issue to center stage in Congress. There, lawmakers worked with a long view in mind, asking who African Americans would be before the Constitution going forward. The first answer came in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Birthright citizenship became law.
> 
> More, however, was necessary. Some worried that a mere act of Congress was vulnerable to future lawmakers who might rethink the question and amend the law. Others opined that Congress might not have the authority to define citizenship at all. The remedy for these uncertainties was a constitutional amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the individual states that provided for birthright citizenship. The result was section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868 and guaranteeing to black Americans — and all people born or naturalized in the United States — the constitutional protection against removal.
> 
> Just months later, in January 1869, Isaiah Wears spoke on behalf of African American political leaders from across the country, heralding the advent of an era in which the “right to residence” would be protected. There were many struggles ahead for black Americans over civil and political rights. But one matter was settled. Gone were schemes that proposed to force their removal from the nation.
> 
> African American struggles of the 1800s bequeathed to those born in the 21st century the basis for the right to be free from removal, exile or banishment. The terms of the very same 14th Amendment are also today the subject of a new debate, one that asks whether birthright doesn’t too generously extend citizenship to all those born in the U.S. This pre-history of the Amendment reveals how, in the 19th century, when citizenship was loosely defined, racism could determine who enjoyed constitutional rights. Thousands of black Americans were left to live under an
> ever-present threat of removal. The story of their fight for the “right to residence” is a cautionary tale for our own time.
> 
> How the 14th Amendment's Promise of Birthright Citizenship Redefined America​
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The 14th amendment did not promise birthright citizenship, as the title of your link states. It gave birthright citizenship to the children born here of American citizen parents, and not to the children born here of foreigner parents. Birthright citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, is unconstitutional, and all of it that has been granted should be revoked.
> 
> 2. Your entire post is invalid, because it contains the faulty term_ "African Americans"._  What you mean is blacks.  There are hundreds of people in the US who are "African Americans", who are white.
Click to expand...

It provided citizenship to the former slaves and their offspring.

Don't try to tell me what I mean.  African Americans is shorthand for "people of African descent" when I use it.  You don't like it, tough shit, you can't do anything about it, other than continue to be WRONG.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MizMolly said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My degree is in drafting and design. Autocad, surveying and blueprints. I work in the Civil Engineering field with my degree. Why would I view more black women in my classes as a negative? I am proud of anyone who furthers their education.
Click to expand...

What is the name of your degree, not what do you do with it.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
> 
> Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?

I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)

We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.

That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> And when they laugh at this, they should pay double.


Your wife is going to be really pissed off when she finds out what you've dragged her into.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ?
> 
> Wow, are YOU ever stupid. Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.
> 
> And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.


I dont' have to read, I already know it doesn't contain anything of substance.

It doesn't surprise me that you missed the eyes & ears reference.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism.  You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era.  It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you.  You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.
Click to expand...

Your math sucks.  The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago.  So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation.  There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a stupid question.  Is that how to talk to your music students or all they all white with the same mind set and perspectives as you?
> 
> My question was to illustrate that you constantly make statements, without qualifiers, that are patently untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you illustrate is yourself as a fool >>
Click to expand...

You really should see someone about your delusions.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> mentioned Japan, China, North Korea, etc., etc. because those countries are racially homogeneous. Why would I do that? That shows that when we are not talking about the white race, there is nothing wrong or evil with being a homogeneous society.
> 
> 
> 
> The United States of America is not a homogeneous society, it never has been.  It was established on the premise of white supremacy and during the first 200+ year of it's existence it enforced it's belief in the superiority of the white race and particularly the subservience of the black race by crafting a series of laws, government policies, practices, procedures, standard, societal mores, court rulings, etc. which enforced the original white supremacist beliefs.
> 
> As far as the rest of your comment, your legal analysis sucks as much as protectionists's, not to be rude (to you).  Neither of you seem to understand the difference between "this is what and how I believe things should be" and "this is how they are".  _In your opinion_, the 14th amendment was unlawfully ratified.  The fact that other people hold that opinion as well has no effect on reality since as of today, the 14th amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution and there are very few options that can be used to remove it but you all are certainly within your rights to try.
> 
> Honestly, from the outside looking in, it appears that your beef with the 14th amendment is nothing more than the fact that it provided citizenship status to people of African descent which is why I believe you keep going back to the "America was founded by whites for whites" declaration.  The birthright citizenship that is sometimes exploited not withstanding, it was a good thing for me and my ancestors and detracted nothing from whites.  Unless we're back to the resentment about having to share again?
Click to expand...


You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.

In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States.  I've said nothing different.  The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed.  There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.)  There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.  The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward  rednecks.

I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me.  Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way.  Yet you would deny me that luxury.  You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment was passed to rectify the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court.  Even though the slaves had been freed they had no legal rights as this decision ruled that as people of African descent they could not be citizens
> 
> When the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868 —150 years ago this Monday — it closed the door on schemes that aimed to make the U.S. a white man’s country. It was a victory that was a long time coming.
> 
> The ratification of the 14th Amendment in July 1868 transformed national belonging, and made African Americans, and indeed all those born on U.S. soil, citizens. Isaiah Wears, a veteran of the abolitionist movement, explained shortly after its passage the rights that he and other African Americans expected to thus enjoy: not only the right to vote and to select representatives, but also “_the right of residence_.”
> 
> The right of residence — to remain unmolested in the territory of the nation — was urgent in Wears’ view. How was it that a right that today many Americans take for granted was so urgently sought in 1868? Black Americans had lived for nearly half a century in a legal limbo. No law defined the rights of people who were no longer slaves. Freedom did not guarantee rights, nor it did not make them citizens. Caught in a debate over their status, they lived under the threat of colonization, a scheme that sought to remove them from the nation.
> 
> By the 1820s, the forces against them were formidable. Colonization societies organized to pressure black people to relocate, to Africa, Canada or the Caribbean. So-called black laws imposed restrictions on daily life, regulating work, family and sociability. The overall objective was removal — or what was variably termed self-deportation, exile or banishment. Black political leaders explained in 1831 they were under threat “by every artifice to render their situation intolerable here, as to compel them to emigrate.” Many state legislatures, north and south, were at work making the U.S. a place where black people had no future.
> 
> Removal relied upon coercion. Oppressive laws aimed to pressure African Americans to resettle elsewhere. Some lawmakers went further and proposed removal by force, threatening former slaves with re-enslavement and compulsory exile if they refused to relocate. Such was the case in 1832 Maryland when legislator Octavius Taney, brother of Supreme Court Justice Roger Taney, proposed a statute that would “facilitate the removal of the free persons of color from our state, and from the United States.” Taney assumed that black people were not citizens, and thus without rights to resist removal.
> 
> You may unsubscribe from email communication at any time. See our Privacy Policy for further details.
> African Americans took such threats seriously, and with good reason. Proposals for their removal looked a lot like the Indian Removal of the 1830s. Black activists understood that tens of thousands of Native Americans had been forcibly relocated from the southeastern U.S., sent west to Indian Territory. During an 1831 convention, they explained how proponents of colonization stood “in the same attitude toward our colored population, as Georgia does to the Cherokee.” If state authorities could relocate Native peoples, the fate of black Americans might very well be the same.
> 
> Court rulings only added to a sense of urgency. Most notoriously, the 1857 Supreme Court in _Dred Scott v. Sandford_ had declared that no black person could be a citizen of the U.S. At stake was Dred Scott’s freedom and whether he could sue for it in a federal court. He could not, Chief Justice Roger Taney concluded. But Taney went further, holding that the Constitution included no protections for free African Americans, thus leaving the individual states at liberty to regulate such people as they saw fit. This gave further license to removal schemes, forced and otherwise.
> 
> But on one point black activists agreed: They _were_ citizens, as a matter of birthright.
> At the 1855 National Colored Convention, delegates gathered as “American citizens asserting their rights on their own native soil.” They insisted upon birthright: “By birth, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are American citizens; by the principles of the Declaration of Independence, we are American citizens; by the meaning of the United States Constitution, we are citizens.” This refrain was repeated, in conventions, in the black press and in pamphlets. Black activists promoted birthright as the standard by which their belonging should be measured.
> 
> Dramatic events made it possible for birthright to gain a full hearing. The Civil War and the emancipation of some four million slaves moved the issue to center stage in Congress. There, lawmakers worked with a long view in mind, asking who African Americans would be before the Constitution going forward. The first answer came in the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which provided: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” Birthright citizenship became law.
> 
> More, however, was necessary. Some worried that a mere act of Congress was vulnerable to future lawmakers who might rethink the question and amend the law. Others opined that Congress might not have the authority to define citizenship at all. The remedy for these uncertainties was a constitutional amendment, proposed by Congress and ratified by the individual states that provided for birthright citizenship. The result was section 1 of the 14th Amendment, ratified in July 1868 and guaranteeing to black Americans — and all people born or naturalized in the United States — the constitutional protection against removal.
> 
> Just months later, in January 1869, Isaiah Wears spoke on behalf of African American political leaders from across the country, heralding the advent of an era in which the “right to residence” would be protected. There were many struggles ahead for black Americans over civil and political rights. But one matter was settled. Gone were schemes that proposed to force their removal from the nation.
> 
> African American struggles of the 1800s bequeathed to those born in the 21st century the basis for the right to be free from removal, exile or banishment. The terms of the very same 14th Amendment are also today the subject of a new debate, one that asks whether birthright doesn’t too generously extend citizenship to all those born in the U.S. This pre-history of the Amendment reveals how, in the 19th century, when citizenship was loosely defined, racism could determine who enjoyed constitutional rights. Thousands of black Americans were left to live under an
> ever-present threat of removal. The story of their fight for the “right to residence” is a cautionary tale for our own time.
> 
> How the 14th Amendment's Promise of Birthright Citizenship Redefined America​
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  The 14th amendment did not promise birthright citizenship, as the title of your link states. It gave birthright citizenship to the children born here of American citizen parents, and not to the children born here of foreigner parents. Birthright citizenship to the kids of illegal aliens, is unconstitutional, and all of it that has been granted should be revoked.
> 
> 2. Your entire post is invalid, because it contains the faulty term_ "African Americans"._  What you mean is blacks.  There are hundreds of people in the US who are "African Americans", who are white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It provided citizenship to the former slaves and their offspring.
> 
> Don't try to tell me what I mean.  African Americans is shorthand for "people of African descent" when I use it.  You don't like it, tough shit, you can't do anything about it, other than continue to be WRONG.
Click to expand...


,1. Of course.  I added another point, you klutz.

2.  I TOLD you what you mean, because you're incapable of speaking English correctly.  The term "African American" used to describe black people is wrong. It can mean anyone who's from Africa, black or white . And if you're not from Africa, you have no business calling yourself an African American.

No charge for the tutoring.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
> 
> Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that:s one of the main differences between you and me.  What you just described is all you got.
Miniscule, compared to my university degrees in economics and geography + a year of graduate school in urban planning + 5 musical instruments I play with expertise -even Winterborn conceded that (for the mandolin) + my years teaching economics in college + my 2 honorable discharges from the military + my dozens of drawings & paintings + my dozens of poems + my movie scripts. ,,+ + +

In short, next to me, you're just being born .


----------



## MaryL

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when they laugh at this, they should pay double.
> 
> 
> 
> Your wife is going to be really pissed off when she finds out what you've dragged her into.
Click to expand...

I won't even bother to ask what the hell that means. No need to tell me.  lol


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ?
> 
> Wow, are YOU ever stupid. Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.
> 
> And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' have to read, I already know it doesn't contain anything of substance.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that you missed the eyes & ears reference.
Click to expand...

Eyes and ears are your best source of information.  Too bad liberals are wrapped up BS "reports"


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism.  You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era.  It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you.  You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your math sucks.  The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago.  So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation.  There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.
Click to expand...

My math is fine.  Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no such thing as a stupid question.  Is that how to talk to your music students or all they all white with the same mind set and perspectives as you?
> 
> My question was to illustrate that you constantly make statements, without qualifiers, that are patently untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you illustrate is yourself as a fool >>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should see someone about your delusions.
Click to expand...

Stop talking to your mirror.


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
Click to expand...

White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?


----------



## IM2

There is no genocide against whites. Only the most severely  radicalized white supremacists believe that bullshit.


----------



## IM2

The *white genocide*, *white extinction*,[1][2][3][4][5] or *white replacement conspiracy theory*[6][7][8] is a white supremacist[9][10][11][12] belief that there is a deliberate plot, often blamed on Jews,[9][12] to promote miscegenation, mass non-white immigration, racial integration, low fertility rates, abortion, governmental land-confiscation from whites, organised violence,[13] and eliminationism in supposedly white-founded countries[9] in order to cause the extinction of whites through forced assimilation[13] and violent genocide.[14][15][16][17] Less frequently, blacks,[18] Hispanics,[19] and Muslims[20] are blamed, but merely as more fertile immigrants,[21] invaders,[22] or violent aggressors,[23] rather than masterminds of a secret plot.[24]

White genocide is a myth,[25][26] based on pseudoscience, pseudohistory, and hatred,[27] driven by a psychological panic often termed white extinction anxiety.[28][19] There is no evidence that white people are dying out or that they will die out, or that anyone is trying to exterminate them as a race.[29][30][31][32] The purpose of the conspiracy theory is to scare white people,[29] and justify a commitment to a white nationalist agenda[33] in support of increasingly successful calls to violence.[25][23][22] Proponents have killed hundreds and injured several hundred more since 2011.

The theory was popularized by white supremacist, neo-Nazi, and convicted felon David Lane around 1995, and has been leveraged as propaganda in Europe, North America, South Africa, and Australia. Similar conspiracy theories were prevalent in Nazi Germany[34] and have been used in present-day interchangeably with,[35] and as a broader and more extreme version of, Renaud Camus's 2012 _The Great Replacement,_ focusing on the white Christian population of France.[36][37] Since the 2019 Christchurch and El Paso shootings, of which the shooters' manifestos decried a "white replacement" and have named _The Great Replacement_; author Bat Ye'or's 2002 Eurabia concept,[38] Camus's 2012 Great Replacement fallacy (often called replacement theory or population replacement),[39] and Gerd Honsik's resurgent 1970s myth of a Kalergi plan,[35] have all been used synonymously with "white genocide" and are increasingly referred to as variations of the conspiracy theory.

White genocide conspiracy theory - Wikipedia


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that the blacks you speak of lived during Jim Crow, and are STILL LIVING, and were AFFECTED for life because of Jim Crow is no different.
> 
> And department of labor statistics prove that the white population, generally is NOT being denied jobs. And you have yet to prove otherwise.
> 
> Nor can you.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove it. It is KNOWN, and your lies are laughed at.  Please prove that birds can fly.
> 
> Ha ha, Liberals love to throw the word _"prove"_ around, thinking they have some kind of leverage. It does - at making them look ridiculous.
Click to expand...


LMAO. Apparantly you don't like it when your own logic is used in response to what you say, do you?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
Click to expand...


Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, so finally you posted an actual  fact. Good job.

And white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.



protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
Click to expand...


Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.

No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.


If that is possible.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, si finally you posted an actual  fact. Snd white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, the history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.
> 
> 
> If that is possible.
Click to expand...


*Amen!*


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> There is no genocide against whites. Only the most severely  radicalized white supremacists believe that bullshit.



If there is any white genocide happening, the opioid epidemic is certainly contributing to it. 

And that is self inflicted.


----------



## protectionist

MaryL said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
Click to expand...

And a major aspect of that is the rioting that occasionally takes place, usually caused by false accusations and fake news reporting. 

 A prime example was the LA riots, in which 54 people died, and billion$ in damages, caused by false accusations against the police arresting Rodney King, and the intentional doctoring of the video tape by KTLA.

Many more examples of this black crime distorted and softballed by Democrat politicians, liberal media, and all black juries are in my OP - Quiz for Liberals (if you dare), which USMB liberals floundered around with, doing nothing but showing how clueless they are.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
Click to expand...

It concerns less because it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.

In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.  Police cars with flashing lights are an everyday occurance.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, so finally you posted an actual  fact. Good job.
> 
> And white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.
> 
> 
> If that is possible.
Click to expand...

1961, 1964, hardly much difference.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It concerns less but it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.
Click to expand...

Everybody doesn't know that because it's not so. White communities have locks on their doors, and silent alarm systems that contact the police.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, si finally you posted an actual  fact. Snd white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep God out of it.  He's not on your side
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It concerns less but it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody doesn't know that because it's not so. White communities have locks on their doors, and silent alarm systems that contact the police.
Click to expand...

 Everybody knows it, you clown liar.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, so finally you posted an actual  fact. Good job.
> 
> And white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.
> 
> 
> If that is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1961, 1964, hardly much difference.
Click to expand...


If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It concerns less but it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody doesn't know that because it's not so. White communities have locks on their doors, and silent alarm systems that contact the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows it, you clown liar.
Click to expand...


Nah, they really don't.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, so finally you posted an actual  fact. Good job.
> 
> And white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.
> 
> 
> If that is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1961, 1964, hardly much difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.
Click to expand...

I have lived in that kind of society for 59 years, ever since the start of AA, and I'm still here.

If YOU lived under that oppression, YOU likely would commit suicide.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> 
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It concerns less but it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody doesn't know that because it's not so. White communities have locks on their doors, and silent alarm systems that contact the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows it, you clown liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they really don't.
Click to expand...

Must be uncomfortable, going through life living lies.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> 
> 
> It concerns less but it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody doesn't know that because it's not so. White communities have locks on their doors, and silent alarm systems that contact the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows it, you clown liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they really don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be uncomfortable, going through life living lies.
Click to expand...

You show us everyday how uncomfortable it is.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It concerns less but it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.
> 
> 
> 
> Everybody doesn't know that because it's not so. White communities have locks on their doors, and silent alarm systems that contact the police.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everybody knows it, you clown liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, they really don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Must be uncomfortable, going through life living lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You show us everyday how uncomfortable it is.
Click to expand...

Ferguson, Baltimore, New York, LA riots, ho hum


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, so finally you posted an actual  fact. Good job.
> 
> And white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jim Crow DID NOT end in 1961. Pick up a history book and read as opposed to making up bullshit and lies.
> 
> No more "weird" than your silly assertion that "hundreds of millions of whites have been adversely affected by AA".
> 
> Using your same logic, "The sons and daughters of the so called victims of AA are also affected by it"
> 
> 
> Therefore, "the sons and daughters" of the victims of Jim Crow were affected by it as well, in the form of generational poverty.
> 
> And the sons and daughters of the BENEFICIARIES of Jim Crow, benefitted as well"
> 
> And no, I'm not "crazy".
> 
> YOU are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.
> 
> 
> If that is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1961, 1964, hardly much difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived in that kind of society for 59 years, ever since the start of AA, and I'm still here.
> 
> If YOU lived under that oppression, YOU likely would commit suicide.
Click to expand...

You've never lived under any type of oppression.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, so finally you posted an actual  fact. Good job.
> 
> And white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although your previous posts have been asinine at best, this time Ill give you a "Nice Try"
> 
> Jim Crow is long gone. Ended in 1961 with the beginning of AA, and massive pandering to blacks.  AA OTOH, is still with us full blast in 42 states, and partially in 8 others.You can probably figure this out. You like to play dumb.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.
> 
> 
> If that is possible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1961, 1964, hardly much difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived in that kind of society for 59 years, ever since the start of AA, and I'm still here.
> 
> If YOU lived under that oppression, YOU likely would commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never lived under any type of oppression.
Click to expand...

I have lived under the oppression of Black Supremacy as shown in the Quiz for Liberals thread, which not one liberal in this forum was able to answer even a single item correctly, including you.

I also have lived under the oppression of AA, for 59 years.  YOU have never lived under any type of oppression.  Quite the contrary, you have been the beneficiary, with favorable discrimination given to you.  You were lucky to be born at the right time for you, you spoiled brat.


----------



## protectionist

The main question for this thread is, how much money should white Americans each be paid in reparations, to compensate for 6 decades of Black Supremacy oppression ?

1.  $1,000
2.  $5,000
3.  $10,000
4.  $100,000
5.  $1 Million

I would select # 5, except I think it's not quite enough.

These reparations would have be coupled with the imprisonment of all the supporters of Affirmative Action.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, so finally you posted an actual  fact. Good job.
> 
> And white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.
> 
> 
> If that is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 1961, 1964, hardly much difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived in that kind of society for 59 years, ever since the start of AA, and I'm still here.
> 
> If YOU lived under that oppression, YOU likely would commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never lived under any type of oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived under the oppression of Black Supremacy as shown in the Quiz for Liberals thread, which not one liberal in this forum was able to answer even a single item correctly, including you.
> 
> I also have lived under the oppression of AA, for 59 years.  YOU have never lived under any type of oppression.  Quite the contrary, you have been the beneficiary, with favorable discrimination given to you.  You were lucky to be born at the right time for you, you spoiled brat.
Click to expand...


Far from spoiled, you senile old fool. I worked two jobs to put myself through college, and was not handed anything for free.

As far as living in an oppresed environment, I attended several civil rights marches with my elders in the shithole south in the early 60's,  and watched as they had feces and urine thrown on them by lowlife, racist scum like you,  for peacefully demonstrating to end segregated schools and gain  the right to vote. I also saw the fear that they lived under when white people were able to murder minorities with immunity and impunity.

During my career before retirement, I was one of only two black directors/vp's in a division that covered 6 states, had 3600 employees and with the exception of my counterpart and I , the company was made up of nearly 80% white male executives and several Asians. I was passed over several times until I was promoted. But, unlike you, I didn't whine about it and play victim.



If I "benefitted" as you claim, it was because of work ethic and results.

You haven't been REALLY oppressed, an effeminate sissy like you would be hiding in a fetal position under your bed if you were.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> The main question for this thread is, how much money should white Americans each be paid in reparations, to compensate for 6 decades of Black Supremacy oppression ?
> 
> 1.  $1,000
> 2.  $5,000
> 3.  $10,000
> 4.  $100,000
> 5.  $1 Million
> 
> I would select # 5, except I think it's not quite enough.
> 
> These reparations would have be coupled with the imprisonment of all the supporters of Affirmative Action.



ROFLMAO!


White people passed the legislation to implement AA,. JFK and LBJ started it....ask their descendants  to write you a check and maybe they will throw in a new walker for you as well.


----------



## MizMolly

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My degree is in drafting and design. Autocad, surveying and blueprints. I work in the Civil Engineering field with my degree. Why would I view more black women in my classes as a negative? I am proud of anyone who furthers their education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the name of your degree, not what do you do with it.
Click to expand...

Associates in Drafting and Design


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes AA, is still in effect in 42 states, so finally you posted an actual  fact. Good job.
> 
> And white females continue to benefit from it more than any other demographic.
> 
> Jim Crow laws were ended with the passage of the civil rights act of 1964, and their residual effects did not magically disappear because of affirmative action being introduced.
> 
> No matter how many times you repeat your lies in this forum, history and the truth will not change, and only serves to make you look even more retarded than you are.
> 
> 
> If that is possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 1961, 1964, hardly much difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived in that kind of society for 59 years, ever since the start of AA, and I'm still here.
> 
> If YOU lived under that oppression, YOU likely would commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never lived under any type of oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived under the oppression of Black Supremacy as shown in the Quiz for Liberals thread, which not one liberal in this forum was able to answer even a single item correctly, including you.
> 
> I also have lived under the oppression of AA, for 59 years.  YOU have never lived under any type of oppression.  Quite the contrary, you have been the beneficiary, with favorable discrimination given to you.  You were lucky to be born at the right time for you, you spoiled brat.
Click to expand...


I went to college on a wrestling scholarship. I earned my education by winning matches. I helped build a business from an idea on a piece of paper. I made my executive status by working 10-12 hour days, 6 days a week for 5 years until the business got steady and only then began the normal work schedule. So shut the fuck up with your crying about AA. If I was white and born during Jim Crow, I would have become the president. You're just a sorry no talent turd, crying because you weren't given what you think your white ass is entitled to.

It's apparent that you're senile. Because a white man issued the executive order.

I haven't taken that quiz and don't plan to.

When you can show proof of any reduction for whites as I have requested, let me know.


----------



## IM2

protectionist said:


> The main question for this thread is, how much money should white Americans each be paid in reparations, to compensate for 6 decades of Black Supremacy oppression ?
> 
> 1.  $1,000
> 2.  $5,000
> 3.  $10,000
> 4.  $100,000
> 5.  $1 Million
> 
> I would select # 5, except I think it's not quite enough.
> 
> These reparations would have be coupled with the imprisonment of all the supporters of Affirmative Action.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question for this thread is, how much money should white Americans each be paid in reparations, to compensate for 6 decades of Black Supremacy oppression ?
> 
> 1.  $1,000
> 2.  $5,000
> 3.  $10,000
> 4.  $100,000
> 5.  $1 Million
> 
> I would select # 5, except I think it's not quite enough.
> 
> These reparations would have be coupled with the imprisonment of all the supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!
> 
> 
> White people passed the legislation to implement AA,. JFK and LBJ started it....ask their descendants  to write you a check and maybe they will throw in a new walker for you as well.
Click to expand...

,I demand reparations from ANYBODY who supports this abomination.  And they should go to jail too.  Go to jail!


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1961, 1964, hardly much difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived in that kind of society for 59 years, ever since the start of AA, and I'm still here.
> 
> If YOU lived under that oppression, YOU likely would commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never lived under any type of oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived under the oppression of Black Supremacy as shown in the Quiz for Liberals thread, which not one liberal in this forum was able to answer even a single item correctly, including you.
> 
> I also have lived under the oppression of AA, for 59 years.  YOU have never lived under any type of oppression.  Quite the contrary, you have been the beneficiary, with favorable discrimination given to you.  You were lucky to be born at the right time for you, you spoiled brat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Far from spoiled, you senile old fool. I worked two jobs to put myself through college, and was not handed anything for free.
> 
> As far as living in an oppresed environment, I attended several civil rights marches with my elders in the shithole south in the early 60's,  and watched as they had feces and urine thrown on them by lowlife, racist scum like you,  for peacefully demonstrating to end segregated schools and gain  the right to vote. I also saw the fear that they lived under when white people were able to murder minorities with immunity and impunity.
> 
> During my career before retirement, I was one of only two black directors/vp's in a division that covered 6 states, had 3600 employees and with the exception of my counterpart and I , the company was made up of nearly 80% white male executives and several Asians. I was passed over several times until I was promoted. But, unlike you, I didn't whine about it and play victim.
> 
> 
> 
> If I "benefitted" as you claim, it was because of work ethic and results.
> 
> You haven't been REALLY oppressed, an effeminate sissy like you would be hiding in a fetal position under your bed if you were.
Click to expand...

Upside down nonsense.  And in the same paragraph where you whined and played victim, crying about being "passed over several times," you say you didn't whine and play victim.

Are you for real ?  Whining and playing victim, is a way of life for blacks, in everything from AA to riots


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1961, 1964, hardly much difference.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived in that kind of society for 59 years, ever since the start of AA, and I'm still here.
> 
> If YOU lived under that oppression, YOU likely would commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never lived under any type of oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived under the oppression of Black Supremacy as shown in the Quiz for Liberals thread, which not one liberal in this forum was able to answer even a single item correctly, including you.
> 
> I also have lived under the oppression of AA, for 59 years.  YOU have never lived under any type of oppression.  Quite the contrary, you have been the beneficiary, with favorable discrimination given to you.  You were lucky to be born at the right time for you, you spoiled brat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went to college on a wrestling scholarship. I earned my education by winning matches. I helped build a business from an idea on a piece of paper. I made my executive status by working 10-12 hour days, 6 days a week for 5 years until the business got steady and only then began the normal work schedule. So shut the fuck up with your crying about AA. If I was white and born during Jim Crow, I would have become the president. You're just a sorry no talent turd, crying because you weren't given what you think your white ass is entitled to.
> 
> It's apparent that you're senile. Because a white man issued the executive order.
> 
> I haven't taken that quiz and don't plan to.
> 
> When you can show proof of any reduction for whites as I have requested, let me know.
Click to expand...

When you can show proof that you got what you got without AA, let me know.

You may have got it because of AA, and you don't even know it.  You probably slept till noon every day for those 6 years, with your hardest work walking to your mailbox to get your welfare check.

Now,  deadbeat.


----------



## MaryL

Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question for this thread is, how much money should white Americans each be paid in reparations, to compensate for 6 decades of Black Supremacy oppression ?
> 
> 1.  $1,000
> 2.  $5,000
> 3.  $10,000
> 4.  $100,000
> 5.  $1 Million
> 
> I would select # 5, except I think it's not quite enough.
> 
> These reparations would have be coupled with the imprisonment of all the supporters of Affirmative Action.
Click to expand...

That's you in whiteface.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.


No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.

I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.

And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism.  You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era.  It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you.  You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your math sucks.  The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago.  So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation.  There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My math is fine.  Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.
Click to expand...

Did you mean a bean counter?

What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?


----------



## MaryL

I deliberately choose to be born Caucasian so I could get all the perqs...but my little "plan" backfired, all those people that chose to be born Asian, Black, left handed or gay, they are on to us! Scram! The jig is up!


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed


My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:




https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity



Porter Rockwell said:


> ... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .


I never said anything of the kind.


Porter Rockwell said:


> There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.


Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?


Porter Rockwell said:


> The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.


And black people are responsible for this how?


Porter Rockwell said:


> I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.


Okay so now we're getting to the real issue. 

The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution. 

Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.

Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> Yeah, that:s one of the main differences between you and me. What you just described is all you got.


Of course in your little pea brain that's all I could have accomplished but I noticed you didn't answer my question.  Do you believe affirmative action assisted me in obtaining my Microsoft certifications?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ?
> 
> Wow, are YOU ever stupid. Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.
> 
> And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' have to read, I already know it doesn't contain anything of substance.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that you missed the eyes & ears reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eyes and ears are your best source of information.  Too bad liberals are wrapped up BS "reports"
Click to expand...

You have a wealth of knowledge at your fingertips so there is absolutely no reason for you to remain as ignorant on so many topics as you are.  

Eyes & ears aren't real useful if your brain doesn't work properly.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It concerns less because it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.  Police cars with flashing lights are an everyday occurance.
Click to expand...

How would you have any idea of what it's like to live in a black neighborhood?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MizMolly said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MizMolly said:
> 
> 
> 
> More lies. Can you prove i have benefitted? Of course not, because I haven’t. Everyone has to compete for jobs. There were more black women in some if my classes than white women. No preferential treatment.
> 
> 
> 
> You still haven't stated what field your degree is in so why is it worth mentioning that in some of your classes there were more black women than white women?  Is that something you view as a negative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My degree is in drafting and design. Autocad, surveying and blueprints. I work in the Civil Engineering field with my degree. Why would I view more black women in my classes as a negative? I am proud of anyone who furthers their education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the name of your degree, not what do you do with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Associates in Drafting and Design
Click to expand...

Awesome!  Thank you.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question for this thread is, how much money should white Americans each be paid in reparations, to compensate for 6 decades of Black Supremacy oppression ?
> 
> 1.  $1,000
> 2.  $5,000
> 3.  $10,000
> 4.  $100,000
> 5.  $1 Million
> 
> I would select # 5, except I think it's not quite enough.
> 
> These reparations would have be coupled with the imprisonment of all the supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!
> 
> 
> White people passed the legislation to implement AA,. JFK and LBJ started it....ask their descendants  to write you a check and maybe they will throw in a new walker for you as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ,I demand reparations from ANYBODY who supports this abomination.  And they should go to jail too.  Go to jail!
Click to expand...

You might want to be careful what you wish for, especially for others.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you lived in an oppressive society in a system of 2nd class citizenship for 3 years, you would likely commit suicide.
> 
> 
> 
> I have lived in that kind of society for 59 years, ever since the start of AA, and I'm still here.
> 
> If YOU lived under that oppression, YOU likely would commit suicide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never lived under any type of oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have lived under the oppression of Black Supremacy as shown in the Quiz for Liberals thread, which not one liberal in this forum was able to answer even a single item correctly, including you.
> 
> I also have lived under the oppression of AA, for 59 years.  YOU have never lived under any type of oppression.  Quite the contrary, you have been the beneficiary, with favorable discrimination given to you.  You were lucky to be born at the right time for you, you spoiled brat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I went to college on a wrestling scholarship. I earned my education by winning matches. I helped build a business from an idea on a piece of paper. I made my executive status by working 10-12 hour days, 6 days a week for 5 years until the business got steady and only then began the normal work schedule. So shut the fuck up with your crying about AA. If I was white and born during Jim Crow, I would have become the president. You're just a sorry no talent turd, crying because you weren't given what you think your white ass is entitled to.
> 
> It's apparent that you're senile. Because a white man issued the executive order.
> 
> I haven't taken that quiz and don't plan to.
> 
> When you can show proof of any reduction for whites as I have requested, let me know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you can show proof that you got what you got without AA, let me know.
> 
> You may have got it because of AA, and you don't even know it.  You probably slept till noon every day for those 6 years, with your hardest work walking to your mailbox to get your welfare check.
> 
> Now,  deadbeat.
Click to expand...

You ever heard of internet defamation?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism.  You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era.  It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you.  You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your math sucks.  The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago.  So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation.  There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My math is fine.  Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean a bean counter?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?
Click to expand...

None of my numbers are wrong.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
Click to expand...


Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:

"_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."

What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that:s one of the main differences between you and me. What you just described is all you got.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course in your little pea brain that's all I could have accomplished but I noticed you didn't answer my question.  Do you believe affirmative action assisted me in obtaining my Microsoft certifications?
Click to expand...

I have no idea, but since AA was in existence, the possibility of it making whatever success you had, can't be ruled out.

Future generations of blacks can only be free of AA suspicion, when it is eliminated 100%.  Until then, blacks live under a dark cloud


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It concerns less because it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.  Police cars with flashing lights are an everyday occurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you have any idea of what it's like to live in a black neighborhood?
Click to expand...

My neighbor's to right and left of.me are both black.  The neighborhood is integrated, but mostly black.  That's why Tampa congressmen are all Democrats.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ?
> 
> Wow, are YOU ever stupid. Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.
> 
> And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' have to read, I already know it doesn't contain anything of substance.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that you missed the eyes & ears reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eyes and ears are your best source of information.  Too bad liberals are wrapped up BS "reports"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a wealth of knowledge at your fingertips so there is absolutely no reason for you to remain as ignorant on so many topics as you are.
> 
> Eyes & ears aren't real useful if your brain doesn't work properly.
Click to expand...

Just like all the other liberals, it is YOU who is ignorant.  You couldn't even score a 10% on any of my Quizzes.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed
> 
> 
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> View attachment 301156​
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
Click to expand...


Multi quotes are a waste of time.  NOBODY participates.  I'll answer you once, but after that, you can talk to the hand.  I won't read it.  You already said you don't read my posts beyond a couple of sentences.

1)  You lied about me and I responded.  America is not a homogeneous nation.  We agree. Full stop

2)  America was INTENDED to be a homogeneous nation.  Full stop

3)  Quoting a statement I make in general and applying it to you is dishonest.  Quit that

4)  I'm not blaming blacks for the drug addicts.  I blame the system in general:  Parents, schools, the government, mental health officials / doctors and then Big Pharma

5)  I don't blame black people for the status quo of whites.  I blame the white people and their own weaknesses for where we are in society.  Blacks, *as a group*, take advantage of the situation

6)   You are extremely uneducated, so you are in NO position to judge me on the 14th Amendment.  Any time a law is written under one pretext, but used to deny all of mankind the *unalienable* Rights that the founders / framers said belonged to all men is a threat to everyone, it is just as wrong as some petty ass law that made Rosa Parks sit in the back of a bus.

The fact that you don't cherish the Rights our founders / framers fought, bled, and died for ... even  pledged to each other their "Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" is of no importance to you is simply this... they were white guys drawing up the blueprint.  That blacks cannot claim any connection to the blueprint, you have nothing but disdain for white people and hiding behind a cloak of legitimacy under an assumed name on a discussion board says more about your character than 1000 paragraphs I could do with observations on the subject.


----------



## MaryL

I can't go  down town anymore  It isn't white supremist I fear, it is rather  those people  "that have no name". Because IF we name them,  we get called names...Pejorative hateful names, ones the liberals like to hate on.  So...I digress.


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.


The Black Israelites are another group formed as a reaction to white racism. White supremacists are actually wearing police unifors, but in standard racist fashion you ignore that.


----------



## MaryL

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The Black Israelites are another group formed as a reaction to white racism. White supremacists are actually wearing police unifors, but in standard racist fashion you ignore that.
Click to expand...

No, um, no I don't . The fact that most of us will never be accosted by "White supper dupper  racists "  most of us are far more likely to be attacked by (Gulp) , I cant say it. People of a darker melanin tone.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
Click to expand...

Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The Black Israelites are another group formed as a reaction to white racism. White supremacists are actually wearing police unifors, but in standard racist fashion you ignore that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, um, no I don't . The fact that most of us will never be accosted by "White supper dupper  racists "  most of us are far more likely to be attacked by (Gulp) , I cant say it. People of a darker melanin tone.
Click to expand...

No, you are more likely to be attacked by someone white. Most crimes occur between people of the same race. You have been race pimped to believe what you do.


----------



## Death Angel

IM2 said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
Click to expand...

I live for seeing you get triggered


----------



## Death Angel

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The Black Israelites are another group formed as a reaction to white racism. White supremacists are actually wearing police unifors, but in standard racist fashion you ignore that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, um, no I don't . The fact that most of us will never be accosted by "White supper dupper  racists "  most of us are far more likely to be attacked by (Gulp) , I cant say it. People of a darker melanin tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are more likely to be attacked by someone white. Most crimes occur between people of the same race. You have been race pimped to believe what you do.
Click to expand...

As long as she avoids black areas she has little to worry about


----------



## MaryL

Trigger rhymes  with another word we cant say, because...ya know. When is the last time a white supremacist actually did something to you?  But meanwhile back at the ranch, we have to skulk around and use our car keys as weapons because  all those "white" racists rapists  murderer robbers are  just hiding behind  every bush  to attack us....


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The Black Israelites are another group formed as a reaction to white racism. White supremacists are actually wearing police unifors, but in standard racist fashion you ignore that.
Click to expand...


Black Israelites then have shown they are not Israelites.  The majority of cops are tyrants because that is what the Democrats and Republicans keep manufacturing at the voters request.

Democrats = Nanny State
Republicans = POLICE STATE

One hand washing the other, my man.


----------



## percysunshine

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?



Crayola color 42.


----------



## yidnar

IM2 said:


> BuckToothMoron said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.
> 
> 
> 
> And that's the problem. White supremacists wear suits and ties now, have college degrees and are well groomed.
Click to expand...

and we are also very handsome, rich, and hung like horses !  does that make you hate me more ??


----------



## yidnar

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The Black Israelites are another group formed as a reaction to white racism. White supremacists are actually wearing police unifors, but in standard racist fashion you ignore that.
Click to expand...

what ??? the black Israelites are the funniest idiots on the internet !! seriously just watch some of the crap they spout !  they called a Native American an uncle tomahawk  !


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
Click to expand...


LMFAO.  Even my most ardent critics on other issues would say that you just acted out of fear and projected your own inner fears onto me.  You are a funny guy.

If you can show me a post where I claim to be "_Mr. Big Time_," I'll be glad to exit USM never to return.  The fact is, you can't.  Then again, you accused me of fucking someone related to you so son, you are a sick puppy.

As a matter of fact, before the left flipped the right wing and conned them into doing the dirty work of the One Worlders, we *DID* take this before a national audience.  Do you remember a little thing called he Fair Tax?  My former U.S. Congressman introduced that bill.  That bill would have gotten rid of the income tax and the IRS.

But, it would be the right that demanded the so - called "_Patriot Act_," and the National ID / REAL ID Act which saved the Socialist Surveillance Number, making people like you and I property of Uncle Scam.  Now, we're equal, but you're still a slave.

With the National ID system in place, we are all subject to the 14th Amendment and it does not guarantee _unalienable _Rights.  You accept it and I protest the unconstitutional law, never giving a slave master any power over me.  You're happy because, on the surface, you think they did something for you.  And you call me names!!!  LMFAO.

BTW, if I had the know how to do podcasts, YouTube videos and could be in the public eye challenging _the powers that be_, I would do exactly that.  But, I was not brought up on computers.  Be glad I don't know people from the younger generation that would help me reach a broad audience.  I'd have no problem with it.  THAT is why I expected you to make good and tell me to name the time and the place.  Face to face debate beats the Hell out of keyboard pecking.


----------



## MaryL

yidnar said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The Black Israelites are another group formed as a reaction to white racism. White supremacists are actually wearing police unifors, but in standard racist fashion you ignore that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what ??? the black Israelites are the funniest idiots on the internet !! seriously just watch some of the crap they spout !  they called a Native American an uncle tomahawk  !
Click to expand...

Its funny how CNN or the main stream media  ignored  them  (BHIs ) instead went after a perfectly innocent white boy in a MAGA hat. They call that a "tell" A not so subtle tell.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
Click to expand...

Why are you so offended and angry?  The utopia you wish to exists simply doesn't.  I had nothing to do with it ending, I wasn't even born then.  And quite frankly as has been pointed out to you already by the others on this board, white people are the ones who drafted and passed the civil rights laws.

You haven't presented a succinct and logical premise for me to argue, so it's not possible for me to debate you.  Likewise you have presented nothing that disputes any of the points I've made because my arguments are based in fact and case law not "oh wouldn't it be nice" or "black people are screwing white people out of jobs" or "the only reason black people have achieved anything, [wait, strike "achieved anything" and replace it with just "anything" because according to to all we haven't honestly earned a damn thing we possess"].

On the other hand if you're serious, then file your complaint, quantify your damages, identify your defendants and let's argue it in the public domain not on a internet message board where anyone can claim anything.  

And I addressed the rest of your comments in a separate post, which is why I stopped reading after your first statement.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

MaryL said:


> Trigger rhymes  with another word we cant say, because...ya know. When is the last time a white supremacist actually did something to you?  But meanwhile back at the ranch, we have to skulk around and use our car keys as weapons because  all those "white" racists rapists  murderer robbers are  just hiding behind  every bush  to attack us....


Maybe you should live in a better neighborhood


----------



## MaryL

No matter how anyone slices it, you cant explain duplicity. Democrats will say or pander to anything. How many genders are there now? (it's like particle physics coming up with entirely new concepts). 112, . and growing. Oh yeah, the white supremacists want to eat your babies, we are totally against that shit.All 12 and 1/2 of them, they are major threat to the existence of humanity.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> Multi quotes are a waste of time. NOBODY participates. I'll answer you once, but after that, you can talk to the hand. I won't read it. You already said you don't read my posts beyond a couple of sentences.


Read, don't read it's up to you, you're not the only person who reads my comments, you're not even the target audience.

And you obviously did not read what I wrote because while I did make the comment that I didn't read beyond the first sentence, I went on to indicate to you specifically that I would address the rest of your comment in a separate post, which I did.  I wouldn't have advised you of that if I did not have concern that you would think that I didn't read everything at all.  It was a courtesy, apparently one that was wasted.



Porter Rockwell said:


> 1) You lied about me and I responded. America is not a homogeneous nation. We agree. Full stop


What lie did I tell about you?  Please quote it because I honestly have no idea what you're referring to.

I still don't understand why you're comparing other nations which are homogenous nations and have no white people to speak of to the United States which we aqree is not a homogenous nation.


Porter Rockwell said:


> 2) America was INTENDED to be a homogeneous nation. Full stop


Perhaps, but it's *NOT*.  Again we're back to your difficulty in dealing with things as they are not as you wish them to be.  Hell women were considered property and not allowed to vote until the 1920's.  Things change.

And just FYI, this is where the white supramecist vibe comes in, you lamenting about how things were, how things were intended to be, how presumably you want a return to a whites only nation although that never existed and the abolishment of the 14th amendment.  I'm not sure though what you envision that would achieve.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question for this thread is, how much money should white Americans each be paid in reparations, to compensate for 6 decades of Black Supremacy oppression ?
> 
> 1.  $1,000
> 2.  $5,000
> 3.  $10,000
> 4.  $100,000
> 5.  $1 Million
> 
> I would select # 5, except I think it's not quite enough.
> 
> These reparations would have be coupled with the imprisonment of all the supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!
> 
> 
> White people passed the legislation to implement AA,. JFK and LBJ started it....ask their descendants  to write you a check and maybe they will throw in a new walker for you as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ,I demand reparations from ANYBODY who supports this abomination.  And they should go to jail too.  Go to jail!
Click to expand...


No one is going to jail, you loon. You should be admitted to a mental ward.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> I have no idea, but since AA was in existence, the possibility of it making whatever success you had, can't be ruled out.
> 
> Future generations of blacks can only be free of AA suspicion, when it is eliminated 100%. Until then, blacks live under a dark cloud


I've been thinking about showing some of your comments to some of my associates, maybe even send them over to a contact I have at Microsoft.  I'm curious how they view attempts to impugn their certification process.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> Future generations of blacks can only be free of AA suspicion, when it is eliminated 100%. Until then, blacks live under a dark cloud


No, that's your own dark cloud that follows you around.  It comes with being a dishonest, envious and hateful individual.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
Click to expand...

The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
  It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst we are at it, lets bring up the so called "Black Hebrew Israelites" .There is plenty of crazy racist shit to dole out all the way round. When YOU go out on the street, in some dark unlit corner, "white supremist" aren't  lurking in the dark about to rob and/or rape your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> The Black Israelites are another group formed as a reaction to white racism. White supremacists are actually wearing police unifors, but in standard racist fashion you ignore that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, um, no I don't . The fact that most of us will never be accosted by "White supper dupper  racists "  most of us are far more likely to be attacked by (Gulp) , I cant say it. People of a darker melanin tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you are more likely to be attacked by someone white. Most crimes occur between people of the same race. You have been race pimped to believe what you do.
Click to expand...

Bernard Goetz for president.
Reginald Denny for vice president.


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism.  You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era.  It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you.  You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your math sucks.  The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago.  So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation.  There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My math is fine.  Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean a bean counter?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?
Click to expand...


Both.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you so offended and angry?  The utopia you wish to exists simply doesn't.  I had nothing to do with it ending, I wasn't even born then.  And quite frankly as has been pointed out to you already by the others on this board, white people are the ones who drafted and passed the civil rights laws.
> 
> You haven't presented a succinct and logical premise for me to argue, so it's not possible for me to debate you.  Likewise you have presented nothing that disputes any of the points I've made because my arguments are based in fact and case law not "oh wouldn't it be nice" or "black people are screwing white people out of jobs" or "the only reason black people have achieved anything, [wait, strike "achieved anything" and replace it with just "anything" because according to to all we haven't honestly earned a damn thing we possess"].
> 
> On the other hand if you're serious, then file your complaint, quantify your damages, identify your defendants and let's argue it in the public domain not on a internet message board where anyone can claim anything.
> 
> And I addressed the rest of your comments in a separate post, which is why I stopped reading after your first statement.
Click to expand...


As stated, I rely solely on facts which is why, despite all your attempts, there is nothing to debate.

I don't blame the black people for anything.  Whites screwed themselves.  If I point out the errors of their ways, they call me a race traitor and a expletive deleted lover.  As you see here, the most racist blacks swear and be damned that I am a white supremacist.  Hell I didn't even know some of these people existed until IM2 helped me out.  Now, I can at least explore what it is some of these guys believe in.

I'm angry that my race gave away this country after many of us fought for it.  They continue to ignorantly work for the one worlders without even realizing it.  I'm frustrated by black supremacists and their cowardice.  At least Hosea Williams had the balls to face me publicly - though his racism cost him his tv show.

No black man ever screwed any white guy out of a job.  Whites who cared about popularity and votes gave America away and did not have the cahones to say no to you.  What I want to say is better said face to face... with whites or blacks.

I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive.  You said it all when you said:

"_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."

You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?


----------



## MaryL

I have been attacked by people that had dark melialin levels in their skin, no so much ones that had lighter  melanin  levels Lets talk reparation for slavery.  How does  that work? Is that even a thing?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have shown yourself son. You are a white supremacist. There are others here who have disagreed with me but they are not racists. You have tried to defend a claim of America was founded by whites, it is only for whites and that blacks for example, exist here illegally as they aren't citizens. You have not said that to Sharpton. And your claim is the definition of racist. I know those like you want to place a false symmetry on the arguments blacks make against white racism, but you can't. It is not possible. There is a difference between reacting or responding to something than initiating it. What you call racism is a response to the racism we have endured as blacks. The fact you and others call it racism means that you believe we are just supposed to accept white racist behavior because that is our place. That belief in and of itself is a belief in white supremacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism.  You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era.  It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you.  You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your math sucks.  The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago.  So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation.  There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My math is fine.  Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean a bean counter?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of my numbers are wrong.
Click to expand...


Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> I have been attacked by people that had dark melialin levels in their skin, no so much ones that had lighter  melanin  levels Lets talk reparation for slavery.  How does  that work? Is that even a thing?



lege prohibitus


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trigger rhymes  with another word we cant say, because...ya know. When is the last time a white supremacist actually did something to you?  But meanwhile back at the ranch, we have to skulk around and use our car keys as weapons because  all those "white" racists rapists  murderer robbers are  just hiding behind  every bush  to attack us....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should live in a better neighborhood
Click to expand...

You mean a white one ?


----------



## MaryL

Lets go into that quicksand of reparations, for slavery.. because that is  really where this is going. Milk a yak if you buy this con job.....


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Future generations of blacks can only be free of AA suspicion, when it is eliminated 100%. Until then, blacks live under a dark cloud
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's your own dark cloud that follows you around.  It comes with being a dishonest, envious and hateful individual.
Click to expand...

Live in denial if you like.  There's no law against that.  There's also no way you can change reality, or where that dark cloud of AA suspicion is located - right on top of your head.


----------



## protectionist

MaryL said:


> I have been attacked by people that had dark melialin levels in their skin, no so much ones that had lighter  melanin  levels Lets talk reparation for slavery.  How does  that work? Is that even a thing?


The only reparations to be paid is to whites, for AA victimization.  The liberal goons who enact and support it, should pay the $$$$$$$$$$$$$, and should also go to jail for violation of civil rights law.


----------



## Jitss617




----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless you are in your 80s or older, you have not endured racism.  You have lived in the Affrimative Action era (1961-2020), and thus you have enjoyed the Black Supremacy policies of this era.  It is whites and some women and non-blacks who have endured racism (AA), not you.  You've got a lot of nerve to claim you have endured racism.
> 
> 
> 
> Your math sucks.  The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago.  So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation.  There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My math is fine.  Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean a bean counter?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of my numbers are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.
Click to expand...

You like to throw the word "proof" around.  OK.  I'll follow suit.  Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan.  Do it.


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> I have been attacked by people that had dark melialin levels in their skin, no so much ones that had lighter  melanin  levels Lets talk reparation for slavery.  How does  that work? Is that even a thing?


I've been attack by whites not so much by blacks. You have no point. The DOJ shows that most crimes happen between people of the same race which disqualifies any anecdotal situations. You will soon learn why reparations aren't just for slavery.


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> Lets go into that quicksand of reparations, for slavery.. because that is  really where this is going. Milk a yak if you buy this con job.....


You all are soon to get your white asses embarrassed on this matter. I would suggest you stay on topic.


----------



## MaryL

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been attacked by people that had dark melialin levels in their skin, no so much ones that had lighter  melanin  levels Lets talk reparation for slavery.  How does  that work? Is that even a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> I've been attack by whites not so much by blacks. You have no point. The DOJ shows that most crimes happen between people of the same race which disqualifies any anecdotal situations. You will soon learn why reparations aren't just for slavery.
Click to expand...

I  know how  some folks discount "anecdotal"  evidence,  But I surely doubt many middle or lower class blacks share your "experience".


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been attacked by people that had dark melialin levels in their skin, no so much ones that had lighter  melanin  levels Lets talk reparation for slavery.  How does  that work? Is that even a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> I've been attack by whites not so much by blacks. You have no point. The DOJ shows that most crimes happen between people of the same race which disqualifies any anecdotal situations. You will soon learn why reparations aren't just for slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I  know how  some folks discount "anecdotal"  evidence,  But I surely doubt many middle or lower class blacks share your "experience".
Click to expand...

I surely think they do.

*white-on-white violent crime (12.0 per 1,000)*
*black-on-white violent crime (3.1 per 1,000).*
*black-on-black crime (16.5 per 1,000)*
*white-on-black violent crime (2.8 per 1,000)*

_Race and Hispanic Origin of Victims and Offenders, 2012-2015_, DOJ’s Bureau of Justice Statistics


----------



## MaryL

Picture this: a black man shaking my hand and congratulating Me. (a little ot' white grannie person) he was like I  was a  liberator walking into Paris ...I didn't know what the hell to think. Just for  walking through  Denver's  infamous  5 points area in 1988.


----------



## MaryL

Blacks aren't dumb, They know their communities are broken  A hardy handshake and a nod.. In the spirit of MLK...


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your math sucks.  The SCOTUS decision in Brown vs Board of education which determined that "separate but equal" was unconstitutional occured in 1954 which was 66 years ago.   The Civil Rights Act of 1964 from which affirmative action arose was 56 years ago.  So you're off by about 15 year, approximatley half a generation.  There are plenty of people who were born when the United States was still lawfully segegrated especially if you take into account our parents and grandparent's lives.
> 
> 
> 
> My math is fine.  Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you mean a bean counter?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of my numbers are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like to throw the word "proof" around.  OK.  I'll follow suit.  Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan.  Do it.
Click to expand...


You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.

Your  belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.

The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It concerns less because it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.  Police cars with flashing lights are an everyday occurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you have any idea of what it's like to live in a black neighborhood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My neighbor's to right and left of.me are both black.  The neighborhood is integrated, but mostly black.  That's why Tampa congressmen are all Democrats.
Click to expand...

The neighborhood you live in is predominantly black?  Why?  The white people won't let you live near them?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main question for this thread is, how much money should white Americans each be paid in reparations, to compensate for 6 decades of Black Supremacy oppression ?
> 
> 1.  $1,000
> 2.  $5,000
> 3.  $10,000
> 4.  $100,000
> 5.  $1 Million
> 
> I would select # 5, except I think it's not quite enough.
> 
> These reparations would have be coupled with the imprisonment of all the supporters of Affirmative Action.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!
> 
> 
> White people passed the legislation to implement AA,. JFK and LBJ started it....ask their descendants  to write you a check and maybe they will throw in a new walker for you as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ,I demand reparations from ANYBODY who supports this abomination.  And they should go to jail too.  Go to jail!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is going to jail, you loon. You should be admitted to a mental ward.
Click to expand...

Ahh, let's not be too hasty here <walking away while whistling> ;-)


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
Click to expand...

How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremist are the least of anybody's  problems Actually the high black CRIME  rate coupled with the Hispanic crime rate and sanctuary cities nobody asked for or  needed...That's far larger issue .
> 
> 
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It concerns less because it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.  Police cars with flashing lights are an everyday occurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you have any idea of what it's like to live in a black neighborhood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My neighbor's to right and left of.me are both black.  The neighborhood is integrated, but mostly black.  That's why Tampa congressmen are all Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The neighborhood you live in is predominantly black?  Why?  The white people won't let you live near them?
Click to expand...



This should be good


NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
Click to expand...


He likely believes the 14th amendment to be an "affirmative action conspiracy", designed to help "blacks" at his wretched expense.



SMGDH.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?


It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said

I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised


NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed
> 
> 
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
Click to expand...


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ?
> 
> Wow, are YOU ever stupid. Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.
> 
> And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' have to read, I already know it doesn't contain anything of substance.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that you missed the eyes & ears reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eyes and ears are your best source of information.  Too bad liberals are wrapped up BS "reports"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a wealth of knowledge at your fingertips so there is absolutely no reason for you to remain as ignorant on so many topics as you are.
> 
> Eyes & ears aren't real useful if your brain doesn't work properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like all the other liberals, it is YOU who is ignorant.  You couldn't even score a 10% on any of my Quizzes.
Click to expand...

If I agree to take one of your quizzes, then you have to agree to take one of mine.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trigger rhymes  with another word we cant say, because...ya know. When is the last time a white supremacist actually did something to you?  But meanwhile back at the ranch, we have to skulk around and use our car keys as weapons because  all those "white" racists rapists  murderer robbers are  just hiding behind  every bush  to attack us....
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should live in a better neighborhood
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean a white one ?
Click to expand...

A more affluent one


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> Blacks aren't dumb, They know their communities are broken  A hardy handshake and a nod.. In the spirit of MLK...


I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.

*"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention*
Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
Date: August 16, 1967

"With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. *And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."*


----------



## IM2

*white paternalism*

*White paternalism* is the belief that whites know what is best for people of other races, viewing them pretty much as overgrown children. It is racist since it assumes that whites know better than other races.

*Examples:*


*White man’s burden* – the duty of whites to help the lesser races. Used in the early 1900s to excuse imperialism.
*White saviour films* – where a white hero saves people of colour. “The Blind Side” (2009), “Dangerous Minds” (1995), etc
*Western imperialism* – which seeks not just control of land, trade and taxes like most empires, but goes beyond that to remaking subjects in its own image – Westernization.
*American and Australian policy on natives* – separating children from their parents to make them white; controlling what little land they have left.
*Whites adopting African children* – like Madonna and Angelina Jolie.
*White allies* – when they go beyond merely helping anti-racist causes to telling people of colour what to do, trying to take over.
*White paternalists love to:*


Point out the success of whites and the failures of blacks – Mugabe, Detroit, white inventions.
See blacks screw up or act like fools.
Talk down to blacks.
Tell blacks that they treat them better than anyone else would.
Tell blacks, in so many words, that they “saved” them from Africa.
*White paternalists hate it when:*


Blacks are not grateful to them.
Blacks get angry or say anything bad about whites.
You see that not just from white commenters on this blog, you see it in how they show blacks on American television. Black crime. Black buffoons. Black pathologies. Screwed-up or helpless black countries.

*White paternalists do not see:*


*Their failed record at handling the affairs of people of colour:* genocide, slavery, Jim Crow, apartheid, taking their land, taking their children, screwing up their countries – Vietnam, El Salvador, Chile, Gaza, Congo and on and on.  They do not see that the most successful non-white country was one of the few countries they were not able to screw up: Japan, which shut out the West for hundreds of years.
*That much of their “success” was based on screwing up the very people they are now supposedly trying to “help”.* America was built on Indian land and black slave labour. The West was built on robbing the world through the Spanish, Portuguese, French and British empires. They do not see that they got to where they are through the barrel of a gun. They think it was through “values” or “institutions” or culture or genes.
*That just as whites know what is in their own best interest, so do blacks and Indians and Vietnamese and everyone else.* There is nothing special about white people. They point to Mugabe but not to Hitler or Stalin. They point to the black illegitimacy rate when it went over 20%, but not to the white illegitimacy rate when it went over 20%. They point to black street crime but not to Wall Street crime. Etc.
Whites say, “Where would you be without us?” Wrong: where would _they_ be without us!

white paternalism


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
Click to expand...


Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.

Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.

*PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:

"_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
_United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)

In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.

Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"

In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:

(_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*

Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?

The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.

The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.

When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)

I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
Click to expand...

Shut up and start working on that national referendum to repeal the 14th amendment.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Shut up and start working on that national referendum to repeal the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


I don't need to.  Remove yourself from federal jurisdiction and quit being a slave.  Oh, that's right.  As long as some of the players have the right hue of skin color, you can accept being a slave.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> My math is fine.  Maybe you could get a beads counter to help you.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean a bean counter?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None of my numbers are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like to throw the word "proof" around.  OK.  I'll follow suit.  Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.
> 
> Your  belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.
> 
> The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.
Click to expand...

I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.

In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).

The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have been attacked by people that had dark melialin levels in their skin, no so much ones that had lighter  melanin  levels Lets talk reparation for slavery.  How does  that work? Is that even a thing?
> 
> 
> 
> I've been attack by whites not so much by blacks. You have no point. The DOJ shows that most crimes happen between people of the same race which disqualifies any anecdotal situations. You will soon learn why reparations aren't just for slavery.
Click to expand...

That's right.  Reparations aren't just for slavery.  They must be paid to whites for AA denial.  To be paid by you, and other perpetrators.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets go into that quicksand of reparations, for slavery.. because that is  really where this is going. Milk a yak if you buy this con job.....
> 
> 
> 
> You all are soon to get your white asses embarrassed on this matter. I would suggest you stay on topic.
Click to expand...

She IS on topic - Black Supremacy.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You try to appear as if you are an intellectual, but with each new posting you show that there is a layer of dishonesty, ignorance, and hatred that is just under the surface.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
Click to expand...

Do you understand English ?  I said "the way it's treated".  Do you have a functioning brain . I didn't say anything was wrong with the 14th amendment . It is fine as it was written and intended to be.  What is wrong is the distortion of of it by vote-hungry Democrats, giving birthright citizenship to kids of foreigners, when it was clearly stated to not be that way.

How it impacts me is a long list of the harms of immigration, which I have posted 100 times in this forum, for the benefit of information-deprived liberal victims of liberal OMISSION media, and liberal OMISSION universities.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> White crime is higher than both. So why does the fact that you're 6 times more likely to get killed, beaten, robbed, raped or cheated by another white than a black or Hispanic not concern you?
> 
> 
> 
> It concerns less because it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.  Police cars with flashing lights are an everyday occurance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How would you have any idea of what it's like to live in a black neighborhood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My neighbor's to right and left of.me are both black.  The neighborhood is integrated, but mostly black.  That's why Tampa congressmen are all Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The neighborhood you live in is predominantly black?  Why?  The white people won't let you live near them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This should be good
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He likely believes the 14th amendment to be an "affirmative action conspiracy", designed to help "blacks" at his wretched expense.
> 
> 
> 
> SMGDH.
Click to expand...

14th amendment and AA are two completely separate subjects.  You are very confused.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if you saw see poverty shacks and homeless people everywhere you look, you would agree with a report that says the community is economically healthy, right ? Is this how brain-fried liberals are ?
> 
> Wow, are YOU ever stupid. Read my post that you quoted over again. Maybe this time a bit slower. Read it 20 times if necessary. Maybe eventually it will sink in. Only an idiot could disagree with it.
> 
> And I didn't say anything about eyewitness testimony, you moron.
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' have to read, I already know it doesn't contain anything of substance.
> 
> It doesn't surprise me that you missed the eyes & ears reference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eyes and ears are your best source of information.  Too bad liberals are wrapped up BS "reports"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have a wealth of knowledge at your fingertips so there is absolutely no reason for you to remain as ignorant on so many topics as you are.
> 
> Eyes & ears aren't real useful if your brain doesn't work properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like all the other liberals, it is YOU who is ignorant.  You couldn't even score a 10% on any of my Quizzes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I agree to take one of your quizzes, then you have to agree to take one of mine.
Click to expand...

OK . But I asked you first, so go ahead


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks aren't dumb, They know their communities are broken  A hardy handshake and a nod.. In the spirit of MLK...
> 
> 
> 
> I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.
> 
> *"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention*
> Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
> Date: August 16, 1967
> 
> "With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. *And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."*
Click to expand...

This might have been true for 1967.  It definitely it not true for 2020.  In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.

Want an example ?  Easy.  Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities).  Observe dozens of employees.  Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees.  Count how many whites you see.  You can use your fingers to count them.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean a bean counter?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> None of my numbers are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like to throw the word "proof" around.  OK.  I'll follow suit.  Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.
> 
> Your  belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.
> 
> The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.
> 
> In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).
> 
> The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.
Click to expand...


Your inability to remember what you stated can be easily corrected by you going back and reading what you posted.

As far as me being racist, you projecting your own tendencies as s defense mechanism is ineffective in you making a credible point.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It concerns less because it is an idiotic lie.  Everybody knows black crime is astronomical compared to white crime.
> 
> In white communities, people leave their doors wide open.  In black communities, ravaged with crime, people have fox locks on their doors, and bars on their windows.  Police cars with flashing lights are an everyday occurance.
> 
> 
> 
> How would you have any idea of what it's like to live in a black neighborhood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My neighbor's to right and left of.me are both black.  The neighborhood is integrated, but mostly black.  That's why Tampa congressmen are all Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The neighborhood you live in is predominantly black?  Why?  The white people won't let you live near them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This should be good
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He likely believes the 14th amendment to be an "affirmative action conspiracy", designed to help "blacks" at his wretched expense.
> 
> 
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 14th amendment and AA are two completely separate subjects.  You are very confused.
Click to expand...


No confusion at regarding your views.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks aren't dumb, They know their communities are broken  A hardy handshake and a nod.. In the spirit of MLK...
> 
> 
> 
> I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.
> 
> *"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention*
> Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
> Date: August 16, 1967
> 
> "With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. *And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This might have been true for 1967.  It definitely it not true for 2020.  In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Want an example ?  Easy.  Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities).  Observe dozens of employees.  Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees.  Count how many whites you see.  You can use your fingers to count them.
Click to expand...



Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
Click to expand...

That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.

JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.

IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count

Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.

Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones


----------



## IM2

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
Click to expand...


Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

IM2 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.
Click to expand...

Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.

Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.

AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all.  Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man.  She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
That, is my world...LOL!


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of my numbers are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like to throw the word "proof" around.  OK.  I'll follow suit.  Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.
> 
> Your  belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.
> 
> The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.
> 
> In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).
> 
> The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to remember what you stated can be easily corrected by you going back and reading what you posted.
> 
> As far as me being racist, you projecting your own tendencies as s defense mechanism is ineffective in you making a credible point.
Click to expand...

1.  Well, by not posting a reference location to this alleged "ANYONE" post, you are thus unable to establish that any such post exists.

2.  As far as you being racist, you support race-based AA.  Case closed.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> How would you have any idea of what it's like to live in a black neighborhood?
> 
> 
> 
> My neighbor's to right and left of.me are both black.  The neighborhood is integrated, but mostly black.  That's why Tampa congressmen are all Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The neighborhood you live in is predominantly black?  Why?  The white people won't let you live near them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This should be good
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He likely believes the 14th amendment to be an "affirmative action conspiracy", designed to help "blacks" at his wretched expense.
> 
> 
> 
> SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 14th amendment and AA are two completely separate subjects.  You are very confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No confusion at regarding your views.
Click to expand...

No need to be.  I make my views clear.  That, however, doesnt mean that you will understand.

Birthright citizenship  from the 14th amendment was clearly meant to exclude kids of foreigners.  You do understand that, don't you ?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks aren't dumb, They know their communities are broken  A hardy handshake and a nod.. In the spirit of MLK...
> 
> 
> 
> I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.
> 
> *"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention*
> Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
> Date: August 16, 1967
> 
> "With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. *And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This might have been true for 1967.  It definitely it not true for 2020.  In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Want an example ?  Easy.  Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities).  Observe dozens of employees.  Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees.  Count how many whites you see.  You can use your fingers to count them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.
Click to expand...

I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.

Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.

Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL

Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks aren't dumb, They know their communities are broken  A hardy handshake and a nod.. In the spirit of MLK...
> 
> 
> 
> I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.
> 
> *"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention*
> Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
> Date: August 16, 1967
> 
> "With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. *And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This might have been true for 1967.  It definitely it not true for 2020.  In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Want an example ?  Easy.  Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities).  Observe dozens of employees.  Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees.  Count how many whites you see.  You can use your fingers to count them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.
> 
> Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL
> 
> Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL
Click to expand...


Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.

National  Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.

Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.
> 
> 
> 
> You like to throw the word "proof" around.  OK.  I'll follow suit.  Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.
> 
> Your  belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.
> 
> The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.
> 
> In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).
> 
> The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your inability to remember what you stated can be easily corrected by you going back and reading what you posted.
> 
> As far as me being racist, you projecting your own tendencies as s defense mechanism is ineffective in you making a credible point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  Well, by not posting a reference location to this alleged "ANYONE" post, you are thus unable to establish that any such post exists.
> 
> 2.  As far as you being racist, you support race-based AA.  Case closed.
Click to expand...



No case to be closed.

1.You are definately senile. You have clearly implied that anyone black that has lived  between 1961 and 2020 have benefitted from AA.

I'm not going to spoon feed your own statements to you.

2. You need to look up the definition of racism. You clearly do not understand what it means. Or you could look in the mirror. That might be easier for you.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
Click to expand...

You are absolutely clueless.  Read my posts in this thread and learn.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely clueless.  Read my posts in this thread and learn.
Click to expand...


LMAO. If anything, he will "learn" how backward your logic is, and how "clueless" you are.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely clueless.  Read my posts in this thread and learn.
Click to expand...

I've been reading your posts for a few years now..i know what you are about...and I utterly reject it. You do entertain though..even if the bulk of your talking points are decades old--and have limited relevance in today's world..outside of forums like these.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.
Click to expand...

Where do you come up with these ludicrous ideas ?  If you average out wealth, whereby a very small % of white billionaires would push the mean number up very high, then maybe that could be construed.

That however is not a very meaningful scenario.  Going by the general, overall population, blacks are just as well off as whites, and in many locales, are in much better economic condition, due to their greater per capita prevalence in the workforce, especially in govt jobs.

I've already posted the positive examples.  Whether you want to check it out for yourself, is up to you.  The objective truth is there, in either case.


----------



## IM2

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.
> 
> Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
> This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.
> 
> AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all.  Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man.  She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
> I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
> That, is my world...LOL!
Click to expand...

It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.


----------



## IM2

No protection is in here crying about a job he didn't get in 1970. There are a lot of jobs I couldn't get while white men/women with less education and experience got them. So I helped a former friend start a business from the ground up and utilized the skills whites like no protection wouldn't hire me to use. No protection is the classic whining racist who blames blacks for taking what he thinks he's entitled to.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

IM2 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.
> 
> Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
> This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.
> 
> AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all.  Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man.  She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
> I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
> That, is my world...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.
Click to expand...

I think my sister was commenting on an issue in her city--she is politically active and it's an issue. As we grew-up together, I can attest that the black culture she was part of--valued education, along with self-sufficiency. But my family was quite the exception..in 1950's and '60's America. We were multi-racial, multi-cultural..and had people in our lives that were ethical, committed and intelligent. So, the ignorance of racism has always taken me by surprise. I get the mechanism....but surely it's a mental defect?


----------



## IM2

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.
> 
> Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
> This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.
> 
> AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all.  Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man.  She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
> I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
> That, is my world...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think my sister was commenting on an issue in her city--she is politically active and it's an issue. As we grew-up together, I can attest that the black culture she was part of--valued education, along with self-sufficiency. But my family was quite the exception..in 1950's and '60's America. We were multi-racial, multi-cultural..and had people in our lives that were ethical, committed and intelligent. So, the ignorance of racism has always taken me by surprise. I get the mechanism....but surely it's a mental defect?
Click to expand...

I was born in 1961. Sellout has generally meant that when you went to college or got a good position, you suddenly forget you are black. An example of this would be a person like OJ.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just don't like what I'm conveying.  There is no hatred involved, let alone dishonestly.  As far as ignorance, I readily admit that I am ignorant of many subjects, many of which simply because I have no interests in them.  However when it comes to the topic of who did what based on their beliefe in the superiority/inferiority of themselves and others, _due to race, _I found it necessary to educate myself in order to be able to counter the lies, deceit and misconceptions (to be generous) of white racists who are still attempting to wreck havoc on the lives of non-whites, but particularly those people of African descent.
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above because that needed to be addressed first and foremost.  I'm address the rest of your comment if necessary in a separate post.
> 
> And for the record, I find it interesting that you believe me to being _trying _to appear as an intellectual.  I *am *smart or intelligent if you prefer, not simply because I believe myself to be (I do, because that's what our teachers have told us getting good grades means) but because others have certified me to be.  Understand?  Unlike protectionist for example, who believes he's better, smarter, more intelligent than *all *of the African Americans on this board but has shown nothing to support his beliefs apparently other than he's not African American.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
Click to expand...

This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.  

While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me make this short for you.  These are YOUR words:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> What you seek is bias confirmation that validates your own views.  Everything else is racist.  Until you can argue my points better than I can, you are ignorant.  I can argue your points all day long and never miss a beat of the standard canard.  It's been forced fed down me for a number of decades.
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
Click to expand...


When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.
> 
> Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
> This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.
> 
> AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all.  Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man.  She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
> I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
> That, is my world...LOL!
Click to expand...

1.  There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.

2.  Only a tiny % of white women benefit from AA, and ALL white women suffer from it, including the beneficiaries, as I've already repeatedly explained, earlier in the thread.

3.  Free postsecondary education is not much of a solution.  The City University of New York has had free tuition for 100 years.  In the 70s, they added "Open Admissions" cancelling academic requirements.

The failure and dropout rate for blacks was off the charts, and that was with watered down courses, and open book exams .  I taught courses there, in this fiasco.

4.  Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.

  These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
Click to expand...

Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks aren't dumb, They know their communities are broken  A hardy handshake and a nod.. In the spirit of MLK...
> 
> 
> 
> I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.
> 
> *"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention*
> Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
> Date: August 16, 1967
> 
> "With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. *And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This might have been true for 1967.  It definitely it not true for 2020.  In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Want an example ?  Easy.  Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities).  Observe dozens of employees.  Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees.  Count how many whites you see.  You can use your fingers to count them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.
> 
> Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL
> 
> Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.
> 
> National  Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.
> 
> Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
Click to expand...

Just slapping a link down here doesnt
carry any weight.  You got something to present, show it.

  The proof examples I posted, do carry weight.  They are living, breathing proof.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am black and don't say the black community is broken. I will say that our tax dollars go into developing white communities. You are white and ignore a whole lot of shit whites have done to create the damage. You need to quit talking about Dr. King.
> 
> *"Where Do We Go From Here?," Address Delivered at the Eleventh Annual SCLC Convention*
> Author: King, Martin Luther, Jr.
> Date: August 16, 1967
> 
> "With all the struggle and all the achievements, we must face the fact, however, that the Negro still lives in the basement of the Great Society. He is still at the bottom, despite the few who have penetrated to slightly higher levels. Even where the door has been forced partially open, mobility for the Negro is still sharply restricted. There is often no bottom at which to start, and when there is there's almost no room at the top. In consequence, Negroes are still impoverished aliens in an affluent society. They are too poor even to rise with the society, too impoverished by the ages to be able to ascend by using their own resources. *And the Negro did not do this himself; it was done to him."*
> 
> 
> 
> This might have been true for 1967.  It definitely it not true for 2020.  In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Want an example ?  Easy.  Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities).  Observe dozens of employees.  Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees.  Count how many whites you see.  You can use your fingers to count them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.
> 
> Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL
> 
> Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.
> 
> National  Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.
> 
> Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just slapping a link down here doesnt
> carry any weight.  You got something to present, show it.
> 
> The proof examples I posted, do carry weight.  They are living, breathing proof.
Click to expand...


Bureau of labor statistics for the entire country are far more accurate than you making some vague reference to the VA system in Florida and the Florida department of employment, which contained no link to any related information. 

Florida is but 1 state in America.

WTH are you smoking?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
Click to expand...


Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?


----------



## Bezukhov

Porter Rockwell said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
Click to expand...

And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Bezukhov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
Click to expand...


You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest.  Don't bother me with mindless drivel.  You are deflecting.


----------



## Bezukhov

Porter Rockwell said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest.  Don't bother me with mindless drivel.  You are deflecting.
Click to expand...

Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Porter Rockwell said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
Click to expand...

I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's. 

Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.

I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Bezukhov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> 
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest.  Don't bother me with mindless drivel.  You are deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
Click to expand...



Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?


----------



## IM2

*"PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."

This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that  *unalienable* Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody needs to waste valuable time trying to master an invalid argument. You're a dumb ass buddy and not reading your drivel is not about confirmation bias. Whoever you think this country was founded for has been changed by the legal process of amending the constitution. The white man was allowed to stay here because the indigenous people here did not believe that anybody had the right to own the land. And their belief makes sense because we only live for a period of time but the land remains when we are gone. It takes 2/3'rds of the states to ratify an amendment, and since the south had decided to form it's own country, wage war and lost, the winning side had every right to impose rules on the seceding states in order to allow them to rejoin the union. So it's like this, running your mouth on the internet with this bogus garbage does nothing. Take your case to the nation. You claim to be Mr. Big time so gather up the other radicalized scrubs and organize a national movement to rescind the 14th Amendment and see what you get. They shut trump up about ending the 14th Amendment and he's the president. You will be sent back to the survivalist compound too.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
Click to expand...


You can't be screwed out of God given rights. You posted a bunch of crap. The government created the 14th because our god given right to be free was being denied. Your lunacy is noted.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
Click to expand...



_"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight_,"  Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution

Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808.  That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.

You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject.  I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago.  If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience.  That's sound counsel.
Start here:

https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20

That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> *"PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
> 
> This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that  *unalienable* Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.



You do *NOT* have* unalienable* Rights today.  The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.

You are simply uneducated.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th amendment, as it is treated, is unconstitutional.
> It would be constitutional, IF it were treated as Jacob Howard said it was to be, but 20th century liberal loons twisted it out of it's intended design, to suit their purposes of increasing their power, and Democrats, desperate for votes now continue the wreckage.
> 
> 
> 
> How can it be unconstitutional when it's part of the U.S. Constitution?
> Which part of the 14th amendment are you taking exception to, and how is it negatively impacting your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't be screwed out of God given rights. You posted a bunch of crap. The government created the 14th because our god given right to be free was being denied. Your lunacy is noted.
Click to expand...


How many times have you ever litigated the 14th Amendment in court?

I challenged one aspect of it and won the case.  What is your REAL experience?  Still waiting on you to call me out.  Come to Georgia and I'll provide the public forum if you call me out on it.  Otherwise, you don't have much credibility.


----------



## Bezukhov

Porter Rockwell said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest.  Don't bother me with mindless drivel.  You are deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
Click to expand...

I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Bezukhov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest.  Don't bother me with mindless drivel.  You are deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.
Click to expand...


What kind of moronic stupidity are you selling?  EVERY Christian that ever walked the face of this earth - black, white, yellow, man, woman, and child is a sinner.  They are all liars and hypocrites.  That applies to me or any other Christian.  We sin and then as we continue to grow in Christ, we atone for the sins and we move forward.  We try to repeat the sin; we try to break old habits; get past addictions.

Why do other people set the bar so high for Christians?


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
> 
> This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that  *unalienable* Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do *NOT* have* unalienable* Rights today.  The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
> 
> You are simply uneducated.
Click to expand...

I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.

"*Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"

Dumb racist piece of shit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
> 
> This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that  *unalienable* Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do *NOT* have* unalienable* Rights today.  The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
> 
> You are simply uneducated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.
> 
> "*Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Dumb racist piece of shit.
Click to expand...


You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too.  And you are wrong.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
Click to expand...

You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.

The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.

As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you mean a bean counter?
> 
> What the hell is wrong with you that you can't even admit that you made a mathematical error?  No, your math is not fine, it's off by around 15 years.  So that either makes you stupid or dishonest or both.  Which is it?
> 
> 
> 
> None of my numbers are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like to throw the word "proof" around.  OK.  I'll follow suit.  Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.
> 
> Your  belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.
> 
> The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.
> 
> In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).
> 
> The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.
Click to expand...

The world is already a better place because men like him exist.  You, we've already established, not so much.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Porter Rockwell said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight_,"  Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808.  That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.
> 
> You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject.  I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago.  If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience.  That's sound counsel.
> Start here:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.
Click to expand...

Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.

You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.


Well I remember it - you implied [all] blacks with your "dark cloud" [of suspicion]



protectionist said:


> Future generations of blacks can only be free of AA suspicion, when it is eliminated 100%. Until then, blacks live under a dark cloud


​


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely clueless.  Read my posts in this thread and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. If anything, he will "learn" how backward your logic is, and how "clueless" you are.
Click to expand...

How backward, dishonest, dishonorable, and pathetic YOU are, needing and relying on AA.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1961, when Affirmative Action began, making blacks the beneficiaries of racism, and whites the victims.
> 
> 
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely clueless.  Read my posts in this thread and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been reading your posts for a few years now..i know what you are about...and I utterly reject it. You do entertain though..even if the bulk of your talking points are decades old--and have limited relevance in today's world..outside of forums like these.
Click to expand...

If you think you have a point to make, state it.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.
> 
> Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
> This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.
> 
> AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all.  Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man.  She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
> I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
> That, is my world...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.
Click to expand...

AA is not equality. It is racist inequality.  You don't get equality from racial discrimination, regardless of the identities of the victims and beneficiaries.

It does achieve one thing though. It shows how malicious and degraded some blacks can get, if given some power.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> No protection is in here crying about a job he didn't get in 1970. There are a lot of jobs I couldn't get while white men/women with less education and experience got them. So I helped a former friend start a business from the ground up and utilized the skills whites like no protection wouldn't hire me to use. No protection is the classic whining racist who blames blacks for taking what he thinks he's entitled to.


Why would you have any trouble getting jobs, when you're black, and can get AA ?  If you had trouble, it must have been because of what a flunk you are.

I have reasons for my trouble.  In graduate school, I was discriminated against for not being black.  For job applications, I lost out because I honorably refused to fill out an AA questionnaire.  The kind of honor you lack.

I started my own business on practically nothing and built it up, and was successful that way.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you say I agree with. However white women have indeed been the major beneficiary of AA and since we have 15 times less wealth than whites due to years of racist public policy, there must be some kind of economic redress for the abuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Without going into the ethical case for financial reparations...I don't support a grossly financial solution..because it won't work..as an ending to the problem of racial inequality in this country. No matter the amount..and i know that the hardcore advocates of this solution want trillions; when the money goes..the racism will still be here. The perception that people who had nothing to do with slavery are still penalized rankles. I know the argument that everyone white benefits from white privilege, and thus they should pay....I reject it on the grounds that culpability requires intent.
> 
> Never-mind that though--I just don't think it will work....as I've heard it proposed. I like the idea of free post-secondary education for minorities...on the Govt. dime and extending out for generations--that would be a game changer..IMO. Also..maybe a decade or so of exemption from all Federal taxes--that might be an acceptable compromise. No matter though..the haters will hate..on both sides of the issue...some will say that anything is too much..and some will say that anything short of totally bankrupting the White race will be too little.
> This is not an issue that is amenable to compromise, IMO.
> 
> AA and women. Stats show that women in general..both white and of color..have benefited far more than men. Especially Black men. Implicit in these conversations seems to be that AA was/is all about Blacks. As you know, this is not the case at all.  Why is this? Perhaps you have some thoughts? My sister, who is Black, says that she believes that it boils down to the fact that many White men can accept an educated Black woman...and are threatened by an educated Black man.  She says that the Black culture often equates education to 'selling out'. I dunno, not my world.
> I do know that rising tuition costs are pricing a good education out of the reach of the poor..and i do know that the poor are dis-proportionality of color.
> That, is my world...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's going to take money to fix the damage caused by what has been done. But no one seemed to have problems handing Japanese, descendants of confederate soldiers, etc., checks for reparations. But in all studies shown pertaining to AA show that white women have benefitted more, not equal to, women/men of color. When white women became part of the equation, it allowed racist white males to meet the requirements of anti discrimination. Now I don't know what black culture your sister was part of, but the one I grew up in told me that education was the way out. As for your question, the answer is white backlash. As you see in here white men think they are losing out because others are given an equal chance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I think my sister was commenting on an issue in her city--she is politically active and it's an issue. As we grew-up together, I can attest that the black culture she was part of--valued education, along with self-sufficiency. But my family was quite the exception..in 1950's and '60's America. We were multi-racial, multi-cultural..and had people in our lives that were ethical, committed and intelligent. So, the ignorance of racism has always taken me by surprise. I get the mechanism....but surely it's a mental defect?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was born in 1961. Sellout has generally meant that when you went to college or got a good position, you suddenly forget you are black. An example of this would be a person like OJ.
Click to expand...

Being born in 1961, you never lived without the existence of AA.  You have no excuse for your failures.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> This might have been true for 1967.  It definitely it not true for 2020.  In fact, blacks are much better off than whites, because they have good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Want an example ?  Easy.  Take a walk through a VA hospital in a city like Tampa, with large populations of both blacks and whites ,(and other minorities).  Observe dozens of employees.  Stay longer and observe hundreds of employees.  Count how many whites you see.  You can use your fingers to count them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.
> 
> Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL
> 
> Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.
> 
> National  Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.
> 
> Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just slapping a link down here doesnt
> carry any weight.  You got something to present, show it.
> 
> The proof examples I posted, do carry weight.  They are living, breathing proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bureau of labor statistics for the entire country are far more accurate than you making some vague reference to the VA system in Florida and the Florida department of employment, which contained no link to any related information.
> 
> Florida is but 1 state in America.
> 
> WTH are you smoking?
Click to expand...

FALSE! Just the opposite is true.  I know as a liberal, you are trained to accept statistics, as if they came from God
  Problem is they come from humans, many of whom lie, and present numbers to show what they want.  My examples cannot be distortion.  If you walk the halls of the VA hospitals, you will see 95% dark-skinned minorities working there.  Pure proof of AA discrimination racism, that can't be concealed.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
> 
> This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that  *unalienable* Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do *NOT* have* unalienable* Rights today.  The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
> 
> You are simply uneducated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.
> 
> "*Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Dumb racist piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too.  And you are wrong.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's why those like you fry yourselves trying to look like us. I am completely right. Your argument is bullshit and you are a dumb racist pos. If the 14th amendment is illegal, take your case to the nation.


----------



## protectionist

Bezukhov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
Click to expand...


"Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster.  Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law.  The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights.  The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation.  Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation.  The government could not take those Rights.  Period.  End of story.  In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them.  *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution.  But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights.  My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities.  We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights.  "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government.  *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*.  It is_ inalienable_.   Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_.  Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*.    This changed the origin of the Right.  You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself.  The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.)  The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_."  How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country.  AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control.  The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_  (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit.  I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
Click to expand...

How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.


----------



## protectionist

Bezukhov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest.  Don't bother me with mindless drivel.  You are deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.
Click to expand...

This sounds more indicative of Islam.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
> 
> This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that  *unalienable* Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do *NOT* have* unalienable* Rights today.  The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
> 
> You are simply uneducated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.
> 
> "*Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Dumb racist piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too.  And you are wrong.
Click to expand...

Wow.  That was a hard shot.  Lol


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> None of my numbers are wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your numbers are made up bullshit. You are  a disingenuous liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You like to throw the word "proof" around.  OK.  I'll follow suit.  Show a shred of proof that any of my numbers are wrong. G'wan.  Do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been asked for "proof" when you have posted outright lies, which is on a regular basis. And as expected, your only "proof" has been to insist that "what you say" is fact.
> 
> Your  belief that ANYONE who is black that has lived between 1961 and 2020, has benefitted from AA is a perfect example of the kind of trailer trash stupidity and ignorance that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society.
> 
> The world will be a better place when you are no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't remember saying that "ANYONE" who's lived between 1961 and 2020 has benefitted from AA.
> 
> In any case, your acceptance of AA, and refusal to acknowledge it's victimization, is an example of the kind of selfish, bottom feeding that still resides in the minds of the bottom rung of society (if you can even be considered part of US society at all).
> 
> The world will be a better place when racists like you are no longer here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The world is already a better place because men like him exist.  You, we've already established, not so much.
Click to expand...

The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.
Click to expand...

Idiot..i was quoting you!
You said...

_*"Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites."
*_
To which I responded_*..."Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed."
*_
If you want to talk about blaming...well...who benefited from slavery? Whose economy was based on slave labor? What percentage of the GNP of the Southern States was slave-based? Supply and demand, after all, right? I don't blame people long dead for our problems today. I acknowledge their part in the making of our nation, warts and all--but blame? Blame is for people like you..who perpetuate the underlying poison of racism..with subtle and not so subtle spinnings of the truth..in order to justify their continuing sense of victim-hood.


----------



## Bezukhov

protectionist said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest.  Don't bother me with mindless drivel.  You are deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This sounds more indicative of Islam.
Click to expand...

Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.


----------



## Bezukhov

protectionist said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is very good as well as well reasoned, thank you.
> 
> While I have already begun formulating my response, I won't be able to get back to this for a minute but I will.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.
Click to expand...

So if red people were killing other red people that means it was Good, Moral and Jesus Approved that White Christians travel thousands of miles across the ocean to kill red people, too. Got it.


----------



## IM2

Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> 
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot..i was quoting you!
> You said...
> 
> _*"Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites."
> *_
> To which I responded_*..."Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed."
> *_
> If you want to talk about blaming...well...who benefited from slavery? Whose economy was based on slave labor? What percentage of the GNP of the Southern States was slave-based? Supply and demand, after all, right? I don't blame people long dead for our problems today. I acknowledge their part in the making of our nation, warts and all--but blame? Blame is for people like you..who perpetuate the underlying poison of racism..with subtle and not so subtle spinnings of the truth..in order to justify their continuing sense of victim-hood.
Click to expand...

Not a quote of me.  SHOW it.  Then apologize, you clumsy oaf.

As for who is perpetuating racism, you are, and your grabby, racist buddies here who all support Affirmative Action, while you mock its victims.

Blame ?  It's for you.


----------



## protectionist

Bezukhov said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You pretend that no other race or any other people acquired their land by treaties and Right of Conquest.  Don't bother me with mindless drivel.  You are deflecting.
> 
> 
> 
> Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This sounds more indicative of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.
Click to expand...

Not many things dumber than equating peace & love Christianity, with war & hate Islam.  .


----------



## protectionist

Bezukhov said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> 
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if red people were killing other red people that means it was Good, Moral and Jesus Approved that White Christians travel thousands of miles across the ocean to kill red people, too. Got it.
Click to expand...

I have long ago posted posts on this subject, educating airheads like you.  Look them up.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.


Unrelated information, Mr Deflection.


----------



## Bezukhov

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated information, Mr Deflection.
Click to expand...

No, it's related. Why travel the ocean blue to kill strangers when Europeans were having so much fun killing their neighbors?


----------



## Bezukhov

protectionist said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if red people were killing other red people that means it was Good, Moral and Jesus Approved that White Christians travel thousands of miles across the ocean to kill red people, too. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have long ago posted posts on this subject, educating airheads like you.  Look them up.
Click to expand...

Why look them up? You're justifying why whites came here and killed red people.


----------



## Bezukhov

protectionist said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did those other races have a religious leader who said: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This sounds more indicative of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not many things dumber than equating peace & love Christianity, with war & hate Islam.  .
Click to expand...

Yes, Christianity colonized the world, bringing its twisted brand of peace and love. There is one difference between Christianity and Islam. Muslims killed for their twisted and evil religion. Christians can hold their heads high. When they killed it was for the noble ends of Greed and Avarice.


----------



## IM2

So now we have excuses when it's shown that whites were doing the exact same thing. And if it's the exact same thing, it's related.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
Click to expand...


You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you formulate your reply, those things that impact me are also impacting you.  Blacks in this country ought to be mad that the government tried to screw them out of God given Rights.  Liberty, as you know, is an* unalienable* Right.
> 
> 
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight_,"  Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808.  That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.
> 
> You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject.  I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago.  If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience.  That's sound counsel.
> Start here:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.
> 
> You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.
Click to expand...


I don't care how you see it.  Anybody can research it.  Your interpretation shows you can't read.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
> 
> This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that  *unalienable* Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do *NOT* have* unalienable* Rights today.  The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
> 
> You are simply uneducated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.
> 
> "*Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Dumb racist piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too.  And you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why those like you fry yourselves trying to look like us. I am completely right. Your argument is bullshit and you are a dumb racist pos. If the 14th amendment is illegal, take your case to the nation.
Click to expand...


I don't fry myself.  My wife said I look 15 years younger than her ex and he is two years younger than me.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
Click to expand...

You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story."
> 
> This along with most of your post is incorrect. First off if people had unalienable rights as you describe, before the 14th amendment, they had them when the 14th amendment was ratified and they have them now. But the reality is that the people did not have unalienable rights because if that was the case, slavery would not have existed, the law of coverture would not have existed, the Europeans would have recognized that the native Americans had those same rights and due to the fact that  *unalienable* Rights were inherent, God given and natural, there was no need for either the Articles of Confederation or Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You do *NOT* have* unalienable* Rights today.  The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
> 
> You are simply uneducated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.
> 
> "*Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Dumb racist piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too.  And you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why those like you fry yourselves trying to look like us. I am completely right. Your argument is bullshit and you are a dumb racist pos. If the 14th amendment is illegal, take your case to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't fry myself.  My wife said I look 15 years younger than her ex and he is two years younger than me.
Click to expand...


The tanning industry earns @5 billion annually. That's how much whites pay to turn brown.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
Click to expand...


I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight_,"  Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808.  That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.
> 
> You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject.  I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago.  If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience.  That's sound counsel.
> Start here:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.
> 
> You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care how you see it.  Anybody can research it.  Your interpretation shows you can't read.
Click to expand...


Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do *NOT* have* unalienable* Rights today.  The government, through the United States Supreme Court ruled as much.
> 
> You are simply uneducated.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm well educated. You just posted 1,000 words of bullshit. According to your description of unalienable rights, they are natural god given rights that no law can change. Ever. That means we have them now. Meanwhile, the 14th Amendment was created due to the fact that blacks were denied the very unalienable rights YOU describe.
> 
> "*Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Dumb racist piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are the one that looks like a turd and smells like one too.  And you are wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, that's why those like you fry yourselves trying to look like us. I am completely right. Your argument is bullshit and you are a dumb racist pos. If the 14th amendment is illegal, take your case to the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't fry myself.  My wife said I look 15 years younger than her ex and he is two years younger than me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The tanning industry earns @5 billion annually. That's how much whites pay to turn brown.
Click to expand...


Lots of white people hate themselves and wannabe something they aren't.  I still recall a white chick got outed as NAACP leader when it was revealed she wasn't black at all.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight_,"  Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808.  That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.
> 
> You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject.  I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago.  If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience.  That's sound counsel.
> Start here:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.
> 
> You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care how you see it.  Anybody can research it.  Your interpretation shows you can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.
Click to expand...


The United States Supreme Court is rigged.  You come here bitching day in and day out.  You could go to court yourself.  But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck.  If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.


----------



## Denizen

Your cat and mouse have conspired.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
Click to expand...

You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are illegal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.

I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.

And I am going to continue.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight_,"  Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808.  That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.
> 
> You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject.  I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago.  If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience.  That's sound counsel.
> Start here:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.
> 
> You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care how you see it.  Anybody can research it.  Your interpretation shows you can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is rigged.  You come here bitching day in and day out.  You could go to court yourself.  But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck.  If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.
Click to expand...


From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
> 
> 
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
Click to expand...


I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.  


They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.

I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.  

But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.

You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight_,"  Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808.  That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.
> 
> You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject.  I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago.  If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience.  That's sound counsel.
> Start here:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.
> 
> You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care how you see it.  Anybody can research it.  Your interpretation shows you can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is rigged.  You come here bitching day in and day out.  You could go to court yourself.  But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck.  If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.
Click to expand...


Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.

Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has.  There is no point me going to court.  Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.


----------



## protectionist

Bezukhov said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> And it was founded as a Christian nation. Jesus said: "Go kill those red people and take their land! Boy, would that give me a boner!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Red people" were killing red people for centuries before any whites arrived in northern America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if red people were killing other red people that means it was Good, Moral and Jesus Approved that White Christians travel thousands of miles across the ocean to kill red people, too. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have long ago posted posts on this subject, educating airheads like you.  Look them up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why look them up? You're justifying why whites came here and killed red people.
Click to expand...

If you looked up those posts, you'd know what you're talking about. Who knows,  Maybe you're getting paid to come in here and make fool out of yourself.


----------



## protectionist

Bezukhov said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated information, Mr Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's related. Why travel the ocean blue to kill strangers when Europeans were having so much fun killing their neighbors?
Click to expand...

1.They didn't kill strangers except in self-defense.  Most Indians never laid eyes on a white person.  Most interracial relations were peaceful, including thousands of Indian-white marriages.


2.  The arrival of Europeans was the best thing that ever happened to American Indians.  Go ask them if they would like to give up living in buildings with indoor plumbing, electricity, heat and AC, TV, stereos, computers, etc, and go back to living like their stone age ancestors.


----------



## protectionist

Bezukhov said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This sounds more indicative of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not many things dumber than equating peace & love Christianity, with war & hate Islam.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Christianity colonized the world, bringing its twisted brand of peace and love. There is one difference between Christianity and Islam. Muslims killed for their twisted and evil religion. Christians can hold their heads high. When they killed it was for the noble ends of Greed and Avarice.[/QUOTE
> 
> I
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a point or are you a bullshit artist?  What is it you are really arguing about?  Is it your position that whites and especially white Christians should be exterminated on the basis of fucked up lie where you cannot be honest about history?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't pretending other races and religions didn't do evil things. Just pointing out the hypocrisy when Christians do the same evil. You know, it was a very good thing for you that Christians in the past were such hypocrites, and did such evil, for if they hadn't Christianity would never had survived, thrived and prospered to the extent that it did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This sounds more indicative of Islam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Islam and Christianity are running neck and neck in the evil department.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not many things dumber than equating peace & love Christianity, with war & hate Islam.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, Christianity colonized the world, bringing its twisted brand of peace and love. There is one difference between Christianity and Islam. Muslims killed for their twisted and evil religion. Christians can hold their heads high. When they killed it was for the noble ends of Greed and Avarice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You called Islam a "religion.  Stupid.
Click to expand...

you called Islam a religion.  That's very dumb.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.


Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?


protectionist said:


> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.


Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.

But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*

In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.

So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.


----------



## gtopa1

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
Click to expand...

"Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."

You sure about that, chief?? 

Greg


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.
> 
> You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how you see it.  Anybody can research it.  Your interpretation shows you can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is rigged.  You come here bitching day in and day out.  You could go to court yourself.  But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck.  If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.
> 
> Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has.  There is no point me going to court.  Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.
Click to expand...


You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
Click to expand...


Except you aren't quoting the facts and you're the one with an agenda. I think I  know what my personal situation is. You are the one with the circus son, and I've been on TV/Radio. I have been able to bring suburban whites into the middle of the hood so they can understand what damage racism has caused. If we  ever debate, I'm going to school you. Because you're a clown trying to peddle race baited garbage the constitution was ratified to end. Unalienable rights can't be taken and all the government did was insure everybody, not just whites, were able to enjoy those rights. There are not two classes, nothing you said was true.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*. It is_ inalienable_. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_. Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_." How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_ (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.





Porter Rockwell said:


> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"


There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.

According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning

*inalienable* 
_adjective_
not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
_
*unalienable *
adjective
not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable: 
Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.

And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.

For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.  
*
On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.

Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.

On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.

Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> I started my own business on practically nothing and built it up, and was successful that way.


I started by own business on practically nothing and built it up, and was successful that way.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> Why would you have any trouble getting jobs, when you're black, and can get AA ?


This is how you sound:  "Why would you have any trouble getting [blank] when you're disabled and can get social security/disability benefits?"

People don't "get" AA.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.


You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me 

Good.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> In terms of raw numbers, the white race is the least (numerically) of the people in the United States. I've said nothing different. The nonwhites outnumber the whites and a subtle form of genocide is being employed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ... a subtle form of genocide is being employed. There is an assault on the family unit by the masses (as you said mostly non-white.) .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is the drugging of America as the system itself gets whites hooked on drugs and destroys lives forever... again disproportionately white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The media attacks whites all day long with tv shows that glorify inter-racial marriages, gay marriage, and whites in heterosexual relationships are portrayed like backward rednecks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I stand against the 14th Amendment and you try to denigrate me. Well segregation was a reality too until Rosa Parks refused to obey a law she believed to be unconstitutional - as did others who felt the same way. Yet you would deny me that luxury. You would shit on my constitutional Rights and deny them because under that veil of reason and tolerance is just another smooth talking bigot with a hatred of anyone that dares to challenge the status quo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
Click to expand...

You're lying.  And you want others to decide based on a lie.  You know what that creates right


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _"The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight_,"  Article I Section 9 of the United States Constitution
> 
> Translation: No future importation or migration of slaves was permitted after 1808.  That allowed our country to transition out without flooding the U.S. with former slaves.
> 
> You should be asking questions if you don't know this subject.  I've been at this since I was a teen - 40 + years ago.  If you don't have the facts, you should start studying before challenging someone with real experience.  That's sound counsel.
> Start here:
> 
> https://www.amazon.com/Time-Cross-Economics-American-Slavery/dp/0393312186&tag=ff0d01-20
> 
> That book will be the best $10 you ever spent if you want to really be in this conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahhh..so that is what you call, 'phasing out". I don't see it that way... I see that clause as affirming the rights of the slave states--and legitimizing the status any slaves imported prior to 1808..Also, the slave population was self-sustaining...thus obviating the need to import.
> 
> You've been 'at this' for your entire life? What a waste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care how you see it.  Anybody can research it.  Your interpretation shows you can't read.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is rigged.  You come here bitching day in and day out.  You could go to court yourself.  But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck.  If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.
Click to expand...

I knew it.


----------



## tigerred59

*There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.

The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded. If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?



Yep. That's his inevitable goal.


----------



## IM2

tigerred59 said:


> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*


Welcome back sister.


----------



## tigerred59

IM2 said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back sister.
Click to expand...

*I got permanently kicked off of Twitter....LOLOLOL....hey, your kickin ass and taking names, I like, I like*


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since that didn't happen, you didn't answer the question.
> 
> 
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely clueless.  Read my posts in this thread and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. If anything, he will "learn" how backward your logic is, and how "clueless" you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How backward, dishonest, dishonorable, and pathetic YOU are, needing and relying on AA.
Click to expand...


I'm retired and don't personally need it, and it never benefitted me, but as long as backward thinking, socially inept, nutjobs like you, who would favor turning back time to the pre civil rights era still exist, future generations of minorities and females need protection from those like you.


----------



## IM2

tigerred59 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I got permanently kicked off of Twitter....LOLOLOL....hey, your kickin ass and taking names, I like, I like*
Click to expand...

Glad you're back. Cause you drop bombs and I like that too.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks in general do not hold "better jobs" than whites in America. That is another outright, blatant fabrication on your part. You are a prolific liar.
> 
> 
> 
> I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.
> 
> Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL
> 
> Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.
> 
> National  Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.
> 
> Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just slapping a link down here doesnt
> carry any weight.  You got something to present, show it.
> 
> The proof examples I posted, do carry weight.  They are living, breathing proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bureau of labor statistics for the entire country are far more accurate than you making some vague reference to the VA system in Florida and the Florida department of employment, which contained no link to any related information.
> 
> Florida is but 1 state in America.
> 
> WTH are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE! Just the opposite is true.  I know as a liberal, you are trained to accept statistics, as if they came from God
> Problem is they come from humans, many of whom lie, and present numbers to show what they want.  My examples cannot be distortion.  If you walk the halls of the VA hospitals, you will see 95% dark-skinned minorities working there.  Pure proof of AA discrimination racism, that can't be concealed.
Click to expand...



Statistical information is commonly used in gathering a factual argument, you loon, that is not a liberal or conservative practice, and sometimes the truth is painful. 

You are continuing to make a very strong case here for your obvious  affliction of insanity.

Pulling incoherent statements out of your empty head, about what "you think you see" at your residence in the VA mental ward in Florida as opposed to  presenting statistically supported facts based on the ENTIRE country is a monumental testament to your abject stupidity and ignorance.

You need to take your meds and STFU.


----------



## tigerred59

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me
> 
> Good.
Click to expand...

*Just a side note....Your tribute to the Tuskegee air men is to be commended. A few years ago I saw a documentary celebrating their contributions to the war and was in complete awe of their record of service and how those black heros, those second class citizen, monkeys, coons, etc....flew side by side with white bomber pilots, protected them and never lost one single mission of attack while doing so. They were so good in fact, that white pilots requested them by unit...God bless your grandfather for his service and you should be proud as should all black americans, sir!!*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

gtopa1 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> 
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."
> 
> You sure about that, chief??
> 
> Greg
Click to expand...


When I have given them the facts about immigration, and I have in more in the field experience from all sides than any man alive today, they reject the facts, ignore the evidence and *every* thread I participate in becomes a shitstorm.  

Try telling people that the public is fickle and you cannot criminalize Liberty, they act as if you just raped their 11 year old daughter.  Tell them that coming into the United States without papers is not a crime, but a civil violation of the law and they will send death threats to your house.  Remind them that it was the right that created the precedent that allowed sanctuary cities and prevented local governments from enforcing federal gun control laws and they either ignore you or send assassins to your home.

Yeah, they've sent people to shoot into my house.  For five years I had a stalker that followed me day and night until I put a bounty out on him and it was substantial.  So, yeah, I'm sure about what I'm telling you.

BTW, if you leave the right alone, they are advocating enforcing immigration laws that were designed to dilute the white vote and marginalize the whites.  All you have to do is remain silent and they will give America away to foreigners.  Just make sure they come in _"legally_" as the right erroneously calls it.  But, yeah, I'm sure of it.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care how you see it.  Anybody can research it.  Your interpretation shows you can't read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is rigged.  You come here bitching day in and day out.  You could go to court yourself.  But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck.  If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.
> 
> Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has.  There is no point me going to court.  Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.
Click to expand...


I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level.  I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> 
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you aren't quoting the facts and you're the one with an agenda. I think I  know what my personal situation is. You are the one with the circus son, and I've been on TV/Radio. I have been able to bring suburban whites into the middle of the hood so they can understand what damage racism has caused. If we  ever debate, I'm going to school you. Because you're a clown trying to peddle race baited garbage the constitution was ratified to end. Unalienable rights can't be taken and all the government did was insure everybody, not just whites, were able to enjoy those rights. There are not two classes, nothing you said was true.
Click to expand...


Everything I said was true and the original concept of two classes of citizenship was taught by accredited law schools only a quarter of a century ago.  You've done nothing save of social media and made a career of hate.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*. It is_ inalienable_. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_. Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_." How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_ (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.
> 
> According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning
> 
> *inalienable*
> _adjective_
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
> _
> *unalienable *
> adjective
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
> Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
> Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
> Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.
> 
> And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.
> 
> For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.
> *
> On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.
> 
> On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
> So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.
> 
> Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?
Click to expand...



I posted credible *court citations* that have authority in the courts.  I'm well aware of what laymen claim.  I told you that the COURTS reinterpreted the words *unalienable* and _inalienable_  and showed it HOW it was corrupted. 

It's impossible to give you a college education in a few paragraphs on the Internet and you would not look up the links even if I left them for you.  But, you know what.  If I did not have something worth considering I would not be waking up to 30 alerts every morning over stuff I posted on this board.  If it had no merit, people would ignore me.  The resistance to the truth is all the validation I need to figure it out:  people like you live in fear.

And, no, we won't be deporting anyone.  You cannot criminalize Liberty.  We can limit citizenship and we don't have to finance the lifestyles of those who come here and don't fend for themselves.  I can think case law and our established customs will handle most of your other unfounded fears.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find your attempts to talk down to me repulsive. You said it all when you said:
> 
> "_I have not read any further than your first statement above_..."
> 
> You can't debate anything when you're too lazy or ignorant to read. Don't leave us much to converse about, does it?
> 
> 
> 
> It's very disengenious on your part to truncate my statement which makes it appear to read as something other than what I said
> 
> I have not read any further than your first statement above *BECAUSE* that [statement] needed to be addressed *FIRST* and foremost. _* I'm (sic) address the rest of your comment *_if necessary *in a separate post*. (which I did)​So which one of us was too "lazy or ignorant" to read the other's comments?  Here's where I addressed the rest of your post as promised
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> My pointing out the fact that the United States is not a homogenous society is not agreement that non-whites outnumber whites because this simply is not true and I have no idea why you believe it is.  The numbers below are updated as of September 2018 and in terms of raw numbers as well as percentages whites far outnumber everyone else:
> 
> 
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/United-States/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> I never said anything of the kind.
> Are you seriously alleging that black doctors are responsible for the alleged disproportionate number of white drug addicts?
> And black people are responsible for this how?
> Okay so now we're getting to the real issue.
> 
> The status quo is equal rights per the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  I advised you all to work on whatever process there is that would allow you to get it removed if you feel that strongly about it.  More importantly, I have not, nor do I have the capability to deny you any of your rights under the U.S. Constitution.  You stating that you are *standing *against the 14th amendment is different that you stating unequivocally that it's invalid or was never ratified ergo not a valid amendment and therefore not a part of the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> Me pointing that out this fact is not me denigrating you but I have to tell you that your comparison to Rosa Parks is not on point and it has nothing to do with race per se.  Rosa Parks exercised her right to protest an unjust law, a law that was used to deny people of their "equal" rights.  You want to exercise your right to attempt to recind an amendment that would effectively put those laws which denied equal rights to others back into place.  Rosa Parks fought to help people, you're fighting to harm people so why would you expect anything other than the pushback you're getting from the very people you're trying to harm if you are successful?  And then you call us hateful for pushing back against what you're trying to do, all while denying that you're coming from a position of white supremacy.
> 
> Again that's not me denigrating you or being hateful, it's me dismantling your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I quoted what you said.  I will know whether or not you're reading what I said after you consider my reply about the 14th Amendment.  You can tell everyone from where you get your rights (or Rights) if you're reading the posts.  Then you can tell us how it feels to be an equal slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You did not quote what I said, you quoted the first part of a compound sentence which caused my words to be out of context with and changed the meaning of,  the entire sentence.
> 
> The fact that you're being dishonest about what you did does not bode well.
> 
> As far as being a slave, if that's how you view yourself well I can't advise you on that, however using that term in connection with me puts another tick mark in the Yes column of the question "White Supramacist?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lying.  And you want others to decide based on a lie.  You know what that creates right
Click to expand...


You have not ever witnessed me lying about a damn thing.  To make such an allegation is a testament to your unethical approach and abject ignorance to a subject.  If you had any balls and talked skeet like that to a man's face, i know what that would create.  I'm done with you.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

IM2 said:


> Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.


Wars so long..they didn't even have name..just lengths..100 years war..30 years war...7 years war. All over..wait for it...religion!


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Enunciated beautifully...in the same document that codified slavery for purposes of representation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot..i was quoting you!
> You said...
> 
> _*"Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites."
> *_
> To which I responded_*..."Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed."
> *_
> If you want to talk about blaming...well...who benefited from slavery? Whose economy was based on slave labor? What percentage of the GNP of the Southern States was slave-based? Supply and demand, after all, right? I don't blame people long dead for our problems today. I acknowledge their part in the making of our nation, warts and all--but blame? Blame is for people like you..who perpetuate the underlying poison of racism..with subtle and not so subtle spinnings of the truth..in order to justify their continuing sense of victim-hood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a quote of me.  SHOW it.  Then apologize, you clumsy oaf.
> 
> As for who is perpetuating racism, you are, and your grabby, racist buddies here who all support Affirmative Action, while you mock its victims.
> 
> Blame ?  It's for you.
Click to expand...

You..Porter..same ole..same ole. But sure..sorry for getting the wrong racist idiot. Still...it was your comrade in supremacy that brought up blame..and you just ran with it.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated information, Mr Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's related. Why travel the ocean blue to kill strangers when Europeans were having so much fun killing their neighbors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.They didn't kill strangers except in self-defense.  Most Indians never laid eyes on a white person.  Most interracial relations were peaceful, including thousands of Indian-white marriages.
> 
> 
> 2.  The arrival of Europeans was the best thing that ever happened to American Indians.  Go ask them if they would like to give up living in buildings with indoor plumbing, electricity, heat and AC, TV, stereos, computers, etc, and go back to living like their stone age ancestors.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMFAO!  That may be a contender for the most stupid post of the month!

Well..maybe I should ask the literal millions of native Americans that died due to the diseases that the Europeans brought with them?

Deaths Caused by Diseases Among the Native Americans in the 18th Century | Synonym

_*"European explorers to the Americas between the 15th and 19th centuries brought several diseases with them that proved deadly to the native population. Diseases such as smallpox, influenza and measles killed approximately 90 percent of the Native American population. The indigenous people did not have any previous exposure to these deadly diseases, and had no natural immunity. Sometimes the illnesses spread after direct contact with European settlers, often resulting in deadly outbreaks that decimated entire villages.

*_
Why Native Americans Didn't Wipe Out Europeans With Diseases

_*"While estimates vary, approximately 20-50 million people are believed to have lived in the Americas shortly before Europeans arrived. Around 95% of them were killed by European diseases."*_


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have any trouble getting jobs, when you're black, and can get AA ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is how you sound:  "Why would you have any trouble getting [blank] when you're disabled and can get social security/disability benefits?"
> 
> People don't "get" AA.
Click to expand...

Often, "people" don't get AA, when only blacks do. In some cases, other non-whites do, and women do.  But blacks always can get it.

Anyone who gets it, does it unscrupuously, knowing many others are unfairly being denied.  It is similar to theft.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
Click to expand...

I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.

  Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about the people, in or out of the govt who make AA happen.  Not everybody in the govt supports it, and certainly not the American people, as a whole.

There are records of who was given favors of AA and who wasn'.t. Whatever the victims didn't get indicates the degree of harm.  In my case, the harm was 40 years of being deprived of a career, plus 5 years of college down the drain.  Add to that numerous jobs lost.

One way of doing it, to simplify , is just grant every white person an equal slice of however much money could be garnished from the perpetrators.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> You were not quoted out of context.  I will let other posters decide that.
> 
> 
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you aren't quoting the facts and you're the one with an agenda. I think I  know what my personal situation is. You are the one with the circus son, and I've been on TV/Radio. I have been able to bring suburban whites into the middle of the hood so they can understand what damage racism has caused. If we  ever debate, I'm going to school you. Because you're a clown trying to peddle race baited garbage the constitution was ratified to end. Unalienable rights can't be taken and all the government did was insure everybody, not just whites, were able to enjoy those rights. There are not two classes, nothing you said was true.
Click to expand...

How about if I bring YOU into my local VA hospital, so you can see what damage your AA racism has done ?

You wanna do that ?  Never too late for someone to "school" you.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*. It is_ inalienable_. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_. Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_." How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_ (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.
> 
> According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning
> 
> *inalienable*
> _adjective_
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
> _
> *unalienable *
> adjective
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
> Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
> Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
> Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.
> 
> And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.
> 
> For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.
> *
> On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.
> 
> On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
> So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.
> 
> Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?
Click to expand...

I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you aren't quoting the facts and you're the one with an agenda. I think I  know what my personal situation is. You are the one with the circus son, and I've been on TV/Radio. I have been able to bring suburban whites into the middle of the hood so they can understand what damage racism has caused. If we  ever debate, I'm going to school you. Because you're a clown trying to peddle race baited garbage the constitution was ratified to end. Unalienable rights can't be taken and all the government did was insure everybody, not just whites, were able to enjoy those rights. There are not two classes, nothing you said was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about if I bring YOU into my local VA hospital, so you can see what damage your AA racism has done ?
> 
> You wanna do that ?  Never too late for someone to "school" you.
Click to expand...

I go to the V.A. hospital every month..The care is excellent---if any there used AA to get the education needed..it worked--if any were hired via AA practices...we, the Vets, benefited. The fact is, that minority hiring practices in the Federal Govt. have done a lot of good..and provided thousands of jobs to people that historically have been shut out of the process. You no likkee? Who cares?

Unlike what you said..I do believe that it is too late to school you--you will die ignorant.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started my own business on practically nothing and built it up, and was successful that way.
> 
> 
> 
> I started by own business on practically nothing and built it up, and was successful that way.
Click to expand...

But now you work in some kind of job doing computer work, for which you have certs from Microsoft, right ?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me
> 
> Good.
Click to expand...

YOU sound very strange, with an uncanny ability to fail to understand things ...aka Stupid.


----------



## protectionist

tigerred59 said:


> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*


Oh God!  
Who left the cage door open ?


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back sister.
Click to expand...

"Sister" ?  I thought that ghetto beast was a man.  Well, racism has no sex boundaries.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> That did happen, by JFK, and again in 1965, by LBJ.  You can't change history.
> 
> 
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are absolutely clueless.  Read my posts in this thread and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. If anything, he will "learn" how backward your logic is, and how "clueless" you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How backward, dishonest, dishonorable, and pathetic YOU are, needing and relying on AA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm retired and don't personally need it, and it never benefitted me, but as long as backward thinking, socially inept, nutjobs like you, who would favor turning back time to the pre civil rights era still exist, future generations of minorities and females need protection from those like you.
Click to expand...

Current and future generations of whites (including women,) need protection from racist criminals like you.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I got permanently kicked off of Twitter....LOLOLOL....hey, your kickin ass and taking names, I like, I like*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Glad you're back. Cause you drop bombs and I like that too.
Click to expand...

But her bombs blow up in her face..after she drops them on her foot.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave a perfect example of the absolute proof that yes, blacks are much better off than whites, with good jobs more so than whites.
> 
> Here's 2 more a proof examples: Ho hum.
> 
> Bay Pines VA hospital, St. Petersburg FL
> 
> Florida Dept of Employment - Job Center, Tampa, FL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Florida is not inclusive of the entire country.
> 
> National  Department of Labor statistics prove you to be making up lies...yet again.
> 
> Labor force characteristics by race and ethnicity, 2017 : BLS Reports: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just slapping a link down here doesnt
> carry any weight.  You got something to present, show it.
> 
> The proof examples I posted, do carry weight.  They are living, breathing proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bureau of labor statistics for the entire country are far more accurate than you making some vague reference to the VA system in Florida and the Florida department of employment, which contained no link to any related information.
> 
> Florida is but 1 state in America.
> 
> WTH are you smoking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE! Just the opposite is true.  I know as a liberal, you are trained to accept statistics, as if they came from God
> Problem is they come from humans, many of whom lie, and present numbers to show what they want.  My examples cannot be distortion.  If you walk the halls of the VA hospitals, you will see 95% dark-skinned minorities working there.  Pure proof of AA discrimination racism, that can't be concealed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Statistical information is commonly used in gathering a factual argument, you loon, that is not a liberal or conservative practice, and sometimes the truth is painful.
> 
> You are continuing to make a very strong case here for your obvious  affliction of insanity.
> 
> Pulling incoherent statements out of your empty head, about what "you think you see" at your residence in the VA mental ward in Florida as opposed to  presenting statistically supported facts based on the ENTIRE country is a monumental testament to your abject stupidity and ignorance.
> 
> You need to take your meds and STFU.
Click to expand...

So the liberal establishment has you fully programmed into its statistics (always from liberal source) mind set, with a total bypass of visible reality right before your eyes.

We already knew that.  Have nice day, robot.


----------



## protectionist

tigerred59 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Just a side note....Your tribute to the Tuskegee air men is to be commended. A few years ago I saw a documentary celebrating their contributions to the war and was in complete awe of their record of service and how those black heros, those second class citizen, monkeys, coons, etc....flew side by side with white bomber pilots, protected them and never lost one single mission of attack while doing so. They were so good in fact, that white pilots requested them by unit...God bless your grandfather for his service and you should be proud as should all black americans, sir!!*
Click to expand...

Of course she should be proud of her grandfather, but from what he did, not because he was black.  And if she, or you, really wanted to laud his fine service, you could join the military and serve in it for 5 years yourself, like I, and many others have done.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."
> 
> You sure about that, chief??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have given them the facts about immigration, and I have in more in the field experience from all sides than any man alive today, they reject the facts, ignore the evidence and *every* thread I participate in becomes a shitstorm.
> 
> Try telling people that the public is fickle and you cannot criminalize Liberty, they act as if you just raped their 11 year old daughter.  Tell them that coming into the United States without papers is not a crime, but a civil violation of the law and they will send death threats to your house.  Remind them that it was the right that created the precedent that allowed sanctuary cities and prevented local governments from enforcing federal gun control laws and they either ignore you or send assassins to your home.
> 
> Yeah, they've sent people to shoot into my house.  For five years I had a stalker that followed me day and night until I put a bounty out on him and it was substantial.  So, yeah, I'm sure about what I'm telling you.
> 
> BTW, if you leave the right alone, they are advocating enforcing immigration laws that were designed to dilute the white vote and marginalize the whites.  All you have to do is remain silent and they will give America away to foreigners.  Just make sure they come in _"legally_" as the right erroneously calls it.  But, yeah, I'm sure of it.
Click to expand...

When you say "coming into the United States without papers", that sure sounds like you are talking about EWI (entry without inspection).  That certainly IS a crime (US Code 8 Section 1325) + its ALSO a civil violation as well.  On the crime side of it, violators get 6 months in fed prison, for first offense, and 2 years for each subsequent.

8 U.S. Code § 1325 -  Improper entry by alien


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*. It is_ inalienable_. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_. Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_." How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_ (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.
> 
> According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning
> 
> *inalienable*
> _adjective_
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
> _
> *unalienable *
> adjective
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
> Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
> Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
> Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.
> 
> And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.
> 
> For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.
> *
> On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.
> 
> On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
> So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.
> 
> Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I posted credible *court citations* that have authority in the courts.  I'm well aware of what laymen claim.  I told you that the COURTS reinterpreted the words *unalienable* and _inalienable_  and showed it HOW it was corrupted.
> 
> It's impossible to give you a college education in a few paragraphs on the Internet and you would not look up the links even if I left them for you.  But, you know what.  If I did not have something worth considering I would not be waking up to 30 alerts every morning over stuff I posted on this board.  If it had no merit, people would ignore me.  The resistance to the truth is all the validation I need to figure it out:  people like you live in fear.
> 
> And, no, we won't be deporting anyone.  You cannot criminalize Liberty.  We can limit citizenship and we don't have to finance the lifestyles of those who come here and don't fend for themselves.  I can think case law and our established customs will handle most of your other unfounded fears.
Click to expand...

Illegal aliens are being deported every day.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot..i was quoting you!
> You said...
> 
> _*"Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites."
> *_
> To which I responded_*..."Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed."
> *_
> If you want to talk about blaming...well...who benefited from slavery? Whose economy was based on slave labor? What percentage of the GNP of the Southern States was slave-based? Supply and demand, after all, right? I don't blame people long dead for our problems today. I acknowledge their part in the making of our nation, warts and all--but blame? Blame is for people like you..who perpetuate the underlying poison of racism..with subtle and not so subtle spinnings of the truth..in order to justify their continuing sense of victim-hood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a quote of me.  SHOW it.  Then apologize, you clumsy oaf.
> 
> As for who is perpetuating racism, you are, and your grabby, racist buddies here who all support Affirmative Action, while you mock its victims.
> 
> Blame ?  It's for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You..Porter..same ole..same ole. But sure..sorry for getting the wrong racist idiot. Still...it was your comrade in supremacy that brought up blame..and you just ran with it.
Click to expand...

You just tripped again.  I don't run with other posters' words.  I've been here 6 years, and have hundreds of OPs on record + over 30,000 posts.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites were killing each other in Europe. STFU protectionist.
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated information, Mr Deflection.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's related. Why travel the ocean blue to kill strangers when Europeans were having so much fun killing their neighbors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.They didn't kill strangers except in self-defense.  Most Indians never laid eyes on a white person.  Most interracial relations were peaceful, including thousands of Indian-white marriages.
> 
> 
> 2.  The arrival of Europeans was the best thing that ever happened to American Indians.  Go ask them if they would like to give up living in buildings with indoor plumbing, electricity, heat and AC, TV, stereos, computers, etc, and go back to living like their stone age ancestors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!  That may be a contender for the most stupid post of the month!
> 
> Well..maybe I should ask the literal millions of native Americans that died due to the diseases that the Europeans brought with them?
> 
> Deaths Caused by Diseases Among the Native Americans in the 18th Century | Synonym
> 
> _*"European explorers to the Americas between the 15th and 19th centuries brought several diseases with them that proved deadly to the native population. Diseases such as smallpox, influenza and measles killed approximately 90 percent of the Native American population. The indigenous people did not have any previous exposure to these deadly diseases, and had no natural immunity. Sometimes the illnesses spread after direct contact with European settlers, often resulting in deadly outbreaks that decimated entire villages.
> 
> *_
> Why Native Americans Didn't Wipe Out Europeans With Diseases
> 
> _*"While estimates vary, approximately 20-50 million people are believed to have lived in the Americas shortly before Europeans arrived. Around 95% of them were killed by European diseases."*_
Click to expand...

Damn fool.  I was talking about American Indians living today.  Your deflection konked out.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you aren't quoting the facts and you're the one with an agenda. I think I  know what my personal situation is. You are the one with the circus son, and I've been on TV/Radio. I have been able to bring suburban whites into the middle of the hood so they can understand what damage racism has caused. If we  ever debate, I'm going to school you. Because you're a clown trying to peddle race baited garbage the constitution was ratified to end. Unalienable rights can't be taken and all the government did was insure everybody, not just whites, were able to enjoy those rights. There are not two classes, nothing you said was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about if I bring YOU into my local VA hospital, so you can see what damage your AA racism has done ?
> 
> You wanna do that ?  Never too late for someone to "school" you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I go to the V.A. hospital every month..The care is excellent---if any there used AA to get the education needed..it worked--if any were hired via AA practices...we, the Vets, benefited. The fact is, that minority hiring practices in the Federal Govt. have done a lot of good..and provided thousands of jobs to people that historically have been shut out of the process. You no likkee? Who cares?
> 
> Unlike what you said..I do believe that it is too late to school you--you will die ignorant.
Click to expand...

AA hiring is not a matter of ignorance or knowledge.  It is a matter of morality. Right vs wrong.

You are on the side of racist discrimination against whites.  You are a lowdown, racist pig, and that's about all there is to it.  Now go crawl back under your rock.

Secondly, I would say that some of the VA care is good, some isn't.  One thing is sure.  It doesn't help the quality of care to have 90% of doctors et al being hired by skin color, rather than qualification.  Duh!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites.  Forget the fact that the Constitution began phasing out slavery AND it under British rule that blacks were made slaves.  How many times have you advocated punishing the British, the slavers and / or the blacks how sold their brethren into slavery?
> 
> 
> 
> I neither like or don't..it is history and it is a data point. No one is advocating punishing anyone..they are advocating addressing historical wrongs--in a variety of ways. I would point out that the British were also the first nation to outlaw slavery--and the first nation to aggressively attempt to end the slave trade by conducting vigorous and effective naval patrols and interdiction's.
> 
> Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed. Jefferson and company were groping in the dark...attempting to codify the philosophical underpinnings of our nation, but actions DO speak louder than words.....and equality may be a right....but it is one that has not yet been attained.
> 
> I'm curious..as to where in the original Constitution..do you find this, 'phasing out of slavery' that you refer to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How interesting that you speak of "whites" when talking about blame for slavery, when the particular whites who engaged in it, were only a tiny % of those living in only one section of the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot..i was quoting you!
> You said...
> 
> _*"Like it or not, the United States was founded for the white people.  Nobody has a problem with slavery unless they can blame the whites."
> *_
> To which I responded_*..."Every ethical person has a problem with slavery..whether or not the 'whites' can be blamed."
> *_
> If you want to talk about blaming...well...who benefited from slavery? Whose economy was based on slave labor? What percentage of the GNP of the Southern States was slave-based? Supply and demand, after all, right? I don't blame people long dead for our problems today. I acknowledge their part in the making of our nation, warts and all--but blame? Blame is for people like you..who perpetuate the underlying poison of racism..with subtle and not so subtle spinnings of the truth..in order to justify their continuing sense of victim-hood.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not a quote of me.  SHOW it.  Then apologize, you clumsy oaf.
> 
> As for who is perpetuating racism, you are, and your grabby, racist buddies here who all support Affirmative Action, while you mock its victims.
> 
> Blame ?  It's for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You..Porter..same ole..same ole. But sure..sorry for getting the wrong racist idiot. Still...it was your comrade in supremacy that brought up blame..and you just ran with it.
Click to expand...


You are the "_same ole - same ole_."  When you draw simplistic conclusions based upon a few paragraphs on the Internet, that is damn foolish.  I do not "_blame_" anyone except those in power.  However, the non-whites were not reluctant to become opportunists and feed off that which government wrongfully took from the haves to give to have nots... and joined in the efforts to take advantage of government thievery.  It's kind of like the non-whites receiving stolen property.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*. It is_ inalienable_. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_. Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_." How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_ (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.
> 
> According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning
> 
> *inalienable*
> _adjective_
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
> _
> *unalienable *
> adjective
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
> Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
> Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
> Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.
> 
> And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.
> 
> For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.
> *
> On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.
> 
> On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
> So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.
> 
> Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.
Click to expand...


Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:

The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race.  It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our *unalienable* Rights.  Different topic, but here is what is relevant:

Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners.  Now, remember, the law *must apply equally to all - no exceptions.
*
Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc.  You're going to deport them?  Really?  You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "_Illegal_" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans.  Some days you just have to be realistic.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*. It is_ inalienable_. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_. Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_." How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_ (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.
> 
> According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning
> 
> *inalienable*
> _adjective_
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
> _
> *unalienable *
> adjective
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
> Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
> Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
> Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.
> 
> And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.
> 
> For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.
> *
> On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.
> 
> On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
> So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.
> 
> Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race.  It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our *unalienable* Rights.  Different topic, but here is what is relevant:
> 
> Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners.  Now, remember, the law *must apply equally to all - no exceptions.
> *
> Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc.  You're going to deport them?  Really?  You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "_Illegal_" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans.  Some days you just have to be realistic.
Click to expand...

I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults).  I have seen no research or anything about that.  Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.

In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution.  It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is.  Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.

If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.

Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*. It is_ inalienable_. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_. Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_." How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_ (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.
> 
> According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning
> 
> *inalienable*
> _adjective_
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
> _
> *unalienable *
> adjective
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
> Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
> Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
> Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.
> 
> And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.
> 
> For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.
> *
> On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.
> 
> On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
> So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.
> 
> Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race.  It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our *unalienable* Rights.  Different topic, but here is what is relevant:
> 
> Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners.  Now, remember, the law *must apply equally to all - no exceptions.
> *
> Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc.  You're going to deport them?  Really?  You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "_Illegal_" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans.  Some days you just have to be realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults).  I have seen no research or anything about that.  Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.
> 
> In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution.  It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is.  Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.
> 
> If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png
Click to expand...


You are wrong on three counts:

1)  It is not the job of the legislative branch of government to interpret the law.  The legislative branch should have worded their Amendment better as only the judicial branch of government can interpret the law and they've done so.  To date, not even Jesus has over-ruled the federal courts on constitutional interpretation unless it was by way of another Amendment

2)  The first casualty of the war in Iraq was an undocumented foreigner who was living in the county I live in.  His family was given citizenship as a result of his actions.  There is a cop in my neighborhood whose father  was undocumented, but his deportation might be listed under civic improvement and I can assure you that there are military officers and government officials whose parents entered the U.S. without papers

3)  The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its real purpose was to disenfranchise you.  It's just like background checks on firearms.  Nobody gives a shit about saving lives or reducing gun violence.  People hate guns and think only the police and military ought to have them.  Politicians tell you what you want to hear and we don't give it a second thought.  

You can brush your teeth with Drano.  They will get white, but your body will be poisoned.  Bear this in mind: for everything you gain, there is something lost.  What you are giving up is greater than what you think is going to happen.  

If you don't listen to reason, that's your burden to bear.  But, be sensible.  Look at what happened when it was undocumented families being deported.  The people may have said one thing in polling, but in practice, it was a different story.  When you start deporting people who were born here and grew up here to some country not obligated to take them, the backlash will end what little advantage conservatives have.  There are better alternatives.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because the 14th Amendment is in the Constitution does not mean it passed constitutional muster. Government has the* power *to declare things legal, but they do not always have the *authority*.
> 
> Normally your question here would be off topic; however, if nullified, the 14th Amendment would have far reaching racial implications that would have to be dealt with by applying other legal doctrines and case law. The links I provide show that the 14th Amendment is illegal because the process was not followed that allows an amendment to become law.
> 
> *PRIOR* to the 14th Amendment becoming law, the people had *unalienable* Rights. The courts determined that those Rights were inherent, God given, natural, *absolute*,* above the law*, and not subject to alienation. Legal dictionaries defined the word *unalienable* as not subject to alienation. The government could not take those Rights. Period. End of story. In a famous gun control case, the United States Supreme Court ruled in one of their first rulings:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_."
> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> In other words, the Constitution does not grant Rights; it merely guarantees them. *Unalienable* Rights predate the Constitution. But the United States Supreme Court illegally legislated from the bench and created another branch of law to circumvent the *absolute* nature of *unalienable *Rights. My links prove, unequivocally, that the 14th Amendment unequivocally created two classes of citizenship: Preamble Citizens and 14th Amendment citizens.
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> In order to circumvent the law, the United States Supreme Court began using a synonym for *unalienable*. It is_ inalienable_. Then the United States Supreme Court defined the word inalienable this way:
> 
> (_Inalienable_) Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred *without the consent* of the one possessing such rights*. *Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101*.*
> 
> Notice that *unalienable* Rights cannot be _aliened_. Inalienable "_Rights_" all of a sudden could be aliened *if you consented*. This changed the origin of the Right. You cannot forfeit an *unalienable* Right (for example, you do not have a Right to kill yourself. The Right to Life was given by a Creator (your God, whomever you deem that to be.) The government dropped the word *unalienable* from its legal lexicon (it's no longer a word in Black's Law Dictionary despite that the word *unalienable* appears in the official version of the Declaration of Independence.) The government laid claim to being the grantor of all your "_rights_." How did that impact my life?
> 
> The government gets to interfere in my religion, telling me what I can and cannot believe, taxing my beliefs according to the government's acceptance of my tenets of faith.
> 
> The government has determined the value of my life and how I'm allowed to defend it, while, at the same time telling me it's my responsibility to defend my individual life and the cops only protect society as a whole.
> 
> When the National ID / REAL ID Act was passed, it mandated the Socialist Surveillance Number ...ooops "_Social Security Number_" and the government now claims I'm their property (a slave) and they monitor my every movement 24 / 7 / 365, either approving or disapproving of my every move within this country. AND they subject us to the unconstitutional income tax (a plank from the Communist Manifesto) in order to maintain control. The government likes to call this the _equal protection of the laws_ (14th Amendment language.)
> 
> I'd continue on, but posts need to have a limit. I've already exceeded mine, but will give you more examples if those are not good enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment citizens are only guaranteed privileges and immunities. We sometimes refer to these as "_rights_," but they are not *unalienable* Rights. "_Rights_" are merely grants by the government. *Unalienable* Rights are the codification of that part of the Declaration of Independence which reads:
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are *Life*, *Liberty *and the *pursuit of Happiness*_.-"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.
> 
> According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning
> 
> *inalienable*
> _adjective_
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
> _
> *unalienable *
> adjective
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
> Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
> Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
> Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.
> 
> And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.
> 
> For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.
> *
> On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.
> 
> On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
> So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.
> 
> Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race.  It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our *unalienable* Rights.  Different topic, but here is what is relevant:
> 
> Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners.  Now, remember, the law *must apply equally to all - no exceptions.
> *
> Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc.  You're going to deport them?  Really?  You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "_Illegal_" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans.  Some days you just have to be realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults).  I have seen no research or anything about that.  Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.
> 
> In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution.  It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is.  Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.
> 
> If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong on three counts:
> 
> 1)  It is not the job of the legislative branch of government to interpret the law.  The legislative branch should have worded their Amendment better as only the judicial branch of government can interpret the law and they've done so.  To date, not even Jesus has over-ruled the federal courts on constitutional interpretation unless it was by way of another Amendment
> 
> 2)  The first casualty of the war in Iraq was an undocumented foreigner who was living in the county I live in.  His family was given citizenship as a result of his actions.  There is a cop in my neighborhood whose father  was undocumented, but his deportation might be listed under civic improvement and I can assure you that there are military officers and government officials whose parents entered the U.S. without papers
> 
> 3)  The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its real purpose was to disenfranchise you.  It's just like background checks on firearms.  Nobody gives a shit about saving lives or reducing gun violence.  People hate guns and think only the police and military ought to have them.  Politicians tell you what you want to hear and we don't give it a second thought.
> 
> You can brush your teeth with Drano.  They will get white, but your body will be poisoned.  Bear this in mind: for everything you gain, there is something lost.  What you are giving up is greater than what you think is going to happen.
> 
> If you don't listen to reason, that's your burden to bear.  But, be sensible.  Look at what happened when it was undocumented families being deported.  The people may have said one thing in polling, but in practice, it was a different story.  When you start deporting people who were born here and grew up here to some country not obligated to take them, the backlash will end what little advantage conservatives have.  There are better alternatives.
Click to expand...

I do not address anything using the false word "undocumented.  Everyone has ID of some kind.  Everyone has documents . If you receive a utility bill you have a document.

I'm talking about filthy Invaders, who disrespected our laws and us, and are ILLEGAL ALIENS, and any of these jobs you mention them having is one more job taken away from an American (of any race).

In 1954, President Eisenhower deported massive numbers of illegal aliens in Operation Wetback.  Many of the men were shipped to Vera Cruz, and just dumped into the shallow water.

The Mexican govt and politicians protested furiously.  Eisenhower paid no attention to them.

What's needed now is Operation Wetback 2, and Jacob Howard's intent fulfilled properly.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is a lot to unpack in your comment and I don't have time right now to give it the indepth consideration I want but I will at least start with this.
> 
> According to the dictionaries I've reviewed,  inalienable and unalienable have the same meaning
> 
> *inalienable*
> _adjective_
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; not alienable:
> _
> *unalienable *
> adjective
> not transferable to another or not capable of being taken away or denied; inalienable:
> Inherent in the U.S. Constitution is the belief that all people are born with an unalienable right to freedom.
> Definition of unalienable | Dictionary.com_​
> Natural rights which are rights we each have just by virtue of having been born, are endowed by our Creator and cannot be legislatively taken, although they can be infringed upon, are what I believe the unalienable rights mentioned in the Declaration of Independence to which you refer.  Among them are the right to life, to liberty and to defend one's life.
> 
> And while the first ten amendmentts to the U.S. Constitution, collectively referred to as the Bill of Rights acknowledges and enumerates specific rights which the government is prohibited from violating in regards to the "People of the United States" these prohibitions do not apply only to natural or unalienable rights.
> 
> For example, the 5th amendment of the U.S. Constitution stipulates that the government may not deprive anyone of their life, liberty or property without due process of the law.  This amendment would seem to uphold the original assertion that life and liberty in the very least are the natural/unalienable rights referred to in the Declaration of Independence and *shall not be infringed.
> *
> On the other hand, I cannot recall ever seeing an argument made that the right to a speedy trial, to face one's accusors, etc. mandated by the 6th amendment is a Creator endowed natural inalienable right that shall not be infringed.  I believe a variety of our national security codes and statutes very effectively infringe upon this right.  The same can be said for the 1st Amendment's right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.  These are not natural Creator endowed rights, they are rights guaranteed by our Constitution.  Same for the right to vote via the 24th amendment.
> 
> Anyway getting back to the 14th amendment so I can get some sleep, as you already know, the 14th amendment was passed primarily to remedy the SCOTUS Dred Scott decision which stated that people of African descent could not be citizens even if they were freedmen and had never been slaves.  For the adults who were brought here there was no path to citizenship however the 14th amendment gave those people of African descent who were born in the United States, even if they were originally born into slavery, a path to citizenship.
> 
> On July 28, *1868,* the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified. The amendment grants citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" which included former slaves who had just been freed after the Civil War.​
> So how is citizenship an inalienable natural Creator given right?  No one has a natural Creator given right to be an American citizen, it's a Constitutional right.
> 
> Citizen is the status of a person recognized under the custom or law as being a legal member of a sovereign state or belonging to a nation. The idea of citizenship has been defined as the capacity of individuals to defend their rights in front of the governmental authority. A person may have multiple citizenships.​
> You have expressed that if you could have your way the 14th amendment would be recinded.  If so, you would get rid of (deport) all people who were born here but who are not white as the original founders wanted?
> 
> 
> 
> I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race.  It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our *unalienable* Rights.  Different topic, but here is what is relevant:
> 
> Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners.  Now, remember, the law *must apply equally to all - no exceptions.
> *
> Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc.  You're going to deport them?  Really?  You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "_Illegal_" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans.  Some days you just have to be realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults).  I have seen no research or anything about that.  Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.
> 
> In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution.  It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is.  Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.
> 
> If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong on three counts:
> 
> 1)  It is not the job of the legislative branch of government to interpret the law.  The legislative branch should have worded their Amendment better as only the judicial branch of government can interpret the law and they've done so.  To date, not even Jesus has over-ruled the federal courts on constitutional interpretation unless it was by way of another Amendment
> 
> 2)  The first casualty of the war in Iraq was an undocumented foreigner who was living in the county I live in.  His family was given citizenship as a result of his actions.  There is a cop in my neighborhood whose father  was undocumented, but his deportation might be listed under civic improvement and I can assure you that there are military officers and government officials whose parents entered the U.S. without papers
> 
> 3)  The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its real purpose was to disenfranchise you.  It's just like background checks on firearms.  Nobody gives a shit about saving lives or reducing gun violence.  People hate guns and think only the police and military ought to have them.  Politicians tell you what you want to hear and we don't give it a second thought.
> 
> You can brush your teeth with Drano.  They will get white, but your body will be poisoned.  Bear this in mind: for everything you gain, there is something lost.  What you are giving up is greater than what you think is going to happen.
> 
> If you don't listen to reason, that's your burden to bear.  But, be sensible.  Look at what happened when it was undocumented families being deported.  The people may have said one thing in polling, but in practice, it was a different story.  When you start deporting people who were born here and grew up here to some country not obligated to take them, the backlash will end what little advantage conservatives have.  There are better alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not address anything using the false word "undocumented.  Everyone has ID of some kind.  Everyone has documents . If you receive a utility bill you have a document.
> 
> I'm talking about filthy Invaders, who disrespected our laws and us, and are ILLEGAL ALIENS, and any of these jobs you mention them having is one more job taken away from an American (of any race).
> 
> In 1954, President Eisenhower deported massive numbers of illegal aliens in Operation Wetback.  Many of the men were shipped to Vera Cruz, and just dumped into the shallow water.
> 
> The Mexican govt and politicians protested furiously.  Eisenhower paid no attention to them.
> 
> What's needed now is Operation Wetback 2, and Jacob Howard's intent fulfilled properly.
Click to expand...


I really wish my own countrymen would learn a little about the law.  I had to fight a case against the so - called _"Patriot Act_" for three years.  That was a Tea Party endorsed bill.  Name calling might make you feel good, but once you've been a defendant and your friends throw you under the bus, you begin to have a whole different respect for the concept of a presumption of innocence.  

I was looking at 25 years in the hoosegow.  The bad thing about the law is that it cuts both ways.  BTW, before the right got involved, many Americans were exiting the system and getting rid of all those human registration papers.  I tried to Google it, but it's covered up pretty good.  My father died without an SSN, bank account, etc. and his 1.5 million dollar estate was successfully probated and the inheritors got their money.  I was damn lucky to have won my case, but it shows that you won't take a fool's advice until you've been a fool yourself.

I wish I could make you understand how easy it is to end up being presumed guilty of a crime.  Imagine me.  The cops said they had a warrant for my arrest and I couldn't believe my ears.  I had not so much as spit on a sidewalk.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would you have any trouble getting jobs, when you're black, and can get AA ?
> 
> 
> 
> This is how you sound:  "Why would you have any trouble getting [blank] when you're disabled and can get social security/disability benefits?"
> 
> People don't "get" AA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Often, "people" don't get AA, when only blacks do. In some cases, other non-whites do, and women do.  But blacks always can get it.
> 
> Anyone who gets it, does it unscrupuously, knowing many others are unfairly being denied.  It is similar to theft.
Click to expand...

You are so stupid lol.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.
Click to expand...

You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.
Click to expand...

Every person who was discriminated against by AA, ie. Every white person and everyone who did not fill out an AA questionnaire, plus anyone else was denied something, based on an AA program.

If you think that would be difficult, that's just another example of your incompetence.  And you still haven't answered my questions, or taken my quizzes.  Get to work.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> In my case, the harm was 40 years of being deprived of a career, plus 5 years of college down the drain. Add to that numerous jobs lost.


Then you should be able to quantify that in monetary amounts with supporting documention correct?  Becasue a nebulous claim of "5 years of college down the drain" and "40 years of being deprived of a career" is not adequate.  Nobody is GUARANTEED the career of their choice, especially if for whatever reasons they cannot meet the qualifications to hold that position.  On one hand you claim to have had a wildly successful life and career, then on the other you're bitching about "40 years of being deprived of a career".  Which is it?  And nobody who completes 5 years of college and comes away with at least one degree considers their 5 years of secondary education as having gone down the drain, unless they're a complete idiot.  Having a college degree puts you ahead of other candidates that don't have a college degree unless it's a requirement *and *as long as you don't have any other disqualifiers or red flags in your background.

Lots of people start off down one path and then end up in another or similar field, sometimes for better sometimes for worse.  But I would bet my last dollar that any lack of success on your part has more to do with your entitlement mentality than anything that affirmative action has caused.  For some reason, you think you should have had a certain life that involved graduate school and being a city planner.  If that's what I wanted to do, there is no way I would have let anyone stand in my way and keep me from achieving my goal.  

Some info

*

*
*What you need to know*
Overview

Urban and regional planners develop land use plans and programs that help create communities, accommodate population growth and revitalize physical facilities in towns, cities, counties, and metropolitan areas.

What skills are needed?

Analytical skills: Urban and regional planners analyze information and data from a variety of sources, such as market research studies, censuses, and environmental impact studies. They use statistical techniques and technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in their analyses to determine the significance of the data.
Communication skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to communicate clearly and effectively because they interact with colleagues and stakeholders, prepare research reports, give presentations, and meet with a wide variety of audiences, including public officials, interest groups, and community members.
Decision-Making skills: Urban and regional planners must weigh all possible planning options and combine analysis, creativity, and realism to choose the appropriate action or plan.
Leadership skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to manage projects, which may include overseeing tasks and planning assignments.
What is the pay?
The average pay for urban and regional planners in the United States ranges from $45,180 to $114,170 as of May 2018.

The specific pay depends on factors such as level of experience, education and training, geographic location, and specific industry.

What education is required?
Most urban and regional planners have a master’s degree from an accredited urban or regional planning program. *Candidates with a bachelor’s degree typically need work experience in planning, public policy, or a related field*.

Master’s degree programs accept students with a wide range of undergraduate backgrounds. However, *many candidates who enter these programs have a bachelor’s degree in economics, geography, political science, or environmental design*.

Discover some of the courses you will take pursuing a degree in Urban and Regional Planning.​
So take what you've earned over the last 40 years and subtract that on a year-by-year basis from what you would have earned as a city planner and you start to come up with your claimed damages.  Can you do that?


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would deport all those who were born here whose parents were not citizens. That is how the 14th amendment was meant to be.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the problem you have and I'm stepping on a landmine here:
> 
> The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and it's real passage didn't have shit to do with race.  It was a globalist attempt to usurp power and deny to each of us our *unalienable* Rights.  Different topic, but here is what is relevant:
> 
> Let me presuppose that you could reinterpret the Constitution and deport the children of undocumented foreigners.  Now, remember, the law *must apply equally to all - no exceptions.
> *
> Having gone on now for several generations, you're talking about cops, scientists, government officials, military officers and soldiers, etc., etc.  You're going to deport them?  Really?  You have thousands of Americans (offspring of these alleged "_Illegal_" aliens) that have security clearances, know state secrets, are on the cusp of scientific breakthroughs and some are even married into the families of other Americans.  Some days you just have to be realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know the occupational status of anchor babies (now adults).  I have seen no research or anything about that.  Without it, just off the cuff, I would guess the occupational levels of these people is not like what you describe.
> 
> In any case, I would deport anyone born here from noncitizen parents, and this is not a reinterpretation of the Constitution.  It is what the 14th amendment was in initially, and what it still is.  Those who created the anchor baby phenomenon, are the ones who reinterpretated.
> 
> If Jacob Howard were here now, I sense he would disallow kids of foreigners protection of the 14th amendment, exactly as he stated it when he authored the amendment in 1866.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a4/Jacob_Merritt_Howard.png
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are wrong on three counts:
> 
> 1)  It is not the job of the legislative branch of government to interpret the law.  The legislative branch should have worded their Amendment better as only the judicial branch of government can interpret the law and they've done so.  To date, not even Jesus has over-ruled the federal courts on constitutional interpretation unless it was by way of another Amendment
> 
> 2)  The first casualty of the war in Iraq was an undocumented foreigner who was living in the county I live in.  His family was given citizenship as a result of his actions.  There is a cop in my neighborhood whose father  was undocumented, but his deportation might be listed under civic improvement and I can assure you that there are military officers and government officials whose parents entered the U.S. without papers
> 
> 3)  The 14th Amendment was illegally ratified and its real purpose was to disenfranchise you.  It's just like background checks on firearms.  Nobody gives a shit about saving lives or reducing gun violence.  People hate guns and think only the police and military ought to have them.  Politicians tell you what you want to hear and we don't give it a second thought.
> 
> You can brush your teeth with Drano.  They will get white, but your body will be poisoned.  Bear this in mind: for everything you gain, there is something lost.  What you are giving up is greater than what you think is going to happen.
> 
> If you don't listen to reason, that's your burden to bear.  But, be sensible.  Look at what happened when it was undocumented families being deported.  The people may have said one thing in polling, but in practice, it was a different story.  When you start deporting people who were born here and grew up here to some country not obligated to take them, the backlash will end what little advantage conservatives have.  There are better alternatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do not address anything using the false word "undocumented.  Everyone has ID of some kind.  Everyone has documents . If you receive a utility bill you have a document.
> 
> I'm talking about filthy Invaders, who disrespected our laws and us, and are ILLEGAL ALIENS, and any of these jobs you mention them having is one more job taken away from an American (of any race).
> 
> In 1954, President Eisenhower deported massive numbers of illegal aliens in Operation Wetback.  Many of the men were shipped to Vera Cruz, and just dumped into the shallow water.
> 
> The Mexican govt and politicians protested furiously.  Eisenhower paid no attention to them.
> 
> What's needed now is Operation Wetback 2, and Jacob Howard's intent fulfilled properly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I really wish my own countrymen would learn a little about the law.  I had to fight a case against the so - called _"Patriot Act_" for three years.  That was a Tea Party endorsed bill.  Name calling might make you feel good, but once you've been a defendant and your friends throw you under the bus, you begin to have a whole different respect for the concept of a presumption of innocence.
> 
> I was looking at 25 years in the hoosegow.  The bad thing about the law is that it cuts both ways.  BTW, before the right got involved, many Americans were exiting the system and getting rid of all those human registration papers.  I tried to Google it, but it's covered up pretty good.  My father died without an SSN, bank account, etc. and his 1.5 million dollar estate was successfully probated and the inheritors got their money.  I was damn lucky to have won my case, but it shows that you won't take a fool's advice until you've been a fool yourself.
> 
> I wish I could make you understand how easy it is to end up being presumed guilty of a crime.  Imagine me.  The cops said they had a warrant for my arrest and I couldn't believe my ears.  I had not so much as spit on a sidewalk.
Click to expand...

I once got accused of a crime.  I fought it in court myself and I beat it.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

tigerred59 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Just a side note....Your tribute to the Tuskegee air men is to be commended. A few years ago I saw a documentary celebrating their contributions to the war and was in complete awe of their record of service and how those black heros, those second class citizen, monkeys, coons, etc....flew side by side with white bomber pilots, protected them and never lost one single mission of attack while doing so. They were so good in fact, that white pilots requested them by unit...God bless your grandfather for his service and you should be proud as should all black americans, sir!!*
Click to expand...

Thank you so much, I do appreciate your kindness.  

I'm female as well, by the way ;-)


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.


Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, the harm was 40 years of being deprived of a career, plus 5 years of college down the drain. Add to that numerous jobs lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to quantify that in monetary amounts with supporting documention correct?  Becasue a nebulous claim of "5 years of college down the drain" and "40 years of being deprived of a career" is not adequate.  Nobody is GUARANTEED the career of their choice, especially if for whatever reasons they cannot meet the qualifications to hold that position.  On one hand you claim to have had a wildly successful life and career, then on the other you're bitching about "40 years of being deprived of a career".  Which is it?  And nobody who completes 5 years of college and comes away with at least one degree considers their 5 years of secondary education as having gone down the drain, unless they're a complete idiot.  Having a college degree puts you ahead of other candidates that don't have a college degree unless it's a requirement *and *as long as you don't have any other disqualifiers or red flags in your background.
> 
> Lots of people start off down one path and then end up in another or similar field, sometimes for better sometimes for worse.  But I would bet my last dollar that any lack of success on your part has more to do with your entitlement mentality than anything that affirmative action has caused.  For some reason, you think you should have had a certain life that involved graduate school and being a city planner.  If that's what I wanted to do, there is no way I would have let anyone stand in my way and keep me from achieving my goal.
> 
> Some info
> 
> *View attachment 301826*
> *What you need to know*
> Overview
> 
> Urban and regional planners develop land use plans and programs that help create communities, accommodate population growth and revitalize physical facilities in towns, cities, counties, and metropolitan areas.
> 
> What skills are needed?
> 
> Analytical skills: Urban and regional planners analyze information and data from a variety of sources, such as market research studies, censuses, and environmental impact studies. They use statistical techniques and technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in their analyses to determine the significance of the data.
> Communication skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to communicate clearly and effectively because they interact with colleagues and stakeholders, prepare research reports, give presentations, and meet with a wide variety of audiences, including public officials, interest groups, and community members.
> Decision-Making skills: Urban and regional planners must weigh all possible planning options and combine analysis, creativity, and realism to choose the appropriate action or plan.
> Leadership skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to manage projects, which may include overseeing tasks and planning assignments.
> What is the pay?
> The average pay for urban and regional planners in the United States ranges from $45,180 to $114,170 as of May 2018.
> 
> The specific pay depends on factors such as level of experience, education and training, geographic location, and specific industry.
> 
> What education is required?
> Most urban and regional planners have a master’s degree from an accredited urban or regional planning program. *Candidates with a bachelor’s degree typically need work experience in planning, public policy, or a related field*.
> 
> Master’s degree programs accept students with a wide range of undergraduate backgrounds. However, *many candidates who enter these programs have a bachelor’s degree in economics, geography, political science, or environmental design*.
> 
> Discover some of the courses you will take pursuing a degree in Urban and Regional Planning.​
> So take what you've earned over the last 40 years and subtract that on a year-by-year basis from what you would have earned as a city planner and you start to come up with your claimed damages.  Can you do that?
Click to expand...

1. I don't respond to posts this long
2. I don't even read them
3. It's your turn to answer MY questions, Ms Question Mark


----------



## IM2

tigerred59 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Just a side note....Your tribute to the Tuskegee air men is to be commended. A few years ago I saw a documentary celebrating their contributions to the war and was in complete awe of their record of service and how those black heros, those second class citizen, monkeys, coons, etc....flew side by side with white bomber pilots, protected them and never lost one single mission of attack while doing so. They were so good in fact, that white pilots requested them by unit...God bless your grandfather for his service and you should be proud as should all black americans, sir!!*
Click to expand...


*AMEN!*


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Just a side note....Your tribute to the Tuskegee air men is to be commended. A few years ago I saw a documentary celebrating their contributions to the war and was in complete awe of their record of service and how those black heros, those second class citizen, monkeys, coons, etc....flew side by side with white bomber pilots, protected them and never lost one single mission of attack while doing so. They were so good in fact, that white pilots requested them by unit...God bless your grandfather for his service and you should be proud as should all black americans, sir!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *AMEN!*
Click to expand...

And you still haven't answered my question about what military service (if any) YOU have accomplished, Mr DODGE.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you aren't quoting the facts and you're the one with an agenda. I think I  know what my personal situation is. You are the one with the circus son, and I've been on TV/Radio. I have been able to bring suburban whites into the middle of the hood so they can understand what damage racism has caused. If we  ever debate, I'm going to school you. Because you're a clown trying to peddle race baited garbage the constitution was ratified to end. Unalienable rights can't be taken and all the government did was insure everybody, not just whites, were able to enjoy those rights. There are not two classes, nothing you said was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I said was true and the original concept of two classes of citizenship was taught by accredited law schools only a quarter of a century ago.  You've done nothing save of social media and made a career of hate.
Click to expand...


Drapetomania was also taught as a legitimate medical disorder too. You and no protection are the only ones that hate around here. Your argument is a load of Georgia southern white racist bullshit. I'm quite sure that was taught in southern law schools with the rest of that lost cause crap. Now go take your claim to the supreme court since it's so true.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your research is invalid. If what you claimed is so true then take your case to the supreme court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is rigged.  You come here bitching day in and day out.  You could go to court yourself.  But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck.  If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.
> 
> Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has.  There is no point me going to court.  Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level.  I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
Click to expand...


No you don't. Now since you have won 2 supreme court cases, you should have the standing to argue the case for the repeal of the 14th amendment.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  *Don't fill out the questionnaire*. Have some integrity and pride.
Click to expand...

You are so full of shit.  I just checked on the City of Treasure Island's website and they have an open position for a city planner.  I examined their employment application and there is NOTHING in it that requires a candidate to indicate their protected class status *AS WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG*.  This is the only reference to EEO in the application

*The City has an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy posted in the Human Resources Office. We believe that one of our greatest strengths as an organization is the diversity of our people.*

Persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will also be checked for the following: Driver License check; local, state, and national criminal history record check; verification of all information on application; background investigation that includes interviews with previous employers and others who can attest to your work habits, qualifications, and character. A credit report may be made for some positions.Among other requirements, persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will:Complete the Immigration & Naturalization Form I-9; be fingerprinted by the City’s Police Department; take an employee loyalty oath; and provide copies of any required licenses or certifications. 

The City of Treasure Island collects the social security number of employees and applicants for employment for the following purposes: identification and verification; credit worthiness; benefit processing, and tax reporting. Social security numbers may also be used as a unique numeric identifier and may be used for search purposes.If you have any questions, feel free to ask anyone in the Human Resources Office.​
Hyperlink to the Job Posting
Hyperlink to the Job Appication


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."
> 
> You sure about that, chief??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have given them the facts about immigration, and I have in more in the field experience from all sides than any man alive today, they reject the facts, ignore the evidence and *every* thread I participate in becomes a shitstorm.
> 
> Try telling people that the public is fickle and you cannot criminalize Liberty, they act as if you just raped their 11 year old daughter.  Tell them that coming into the United States without papers is not a crime, but a civil violation of the law and they will send death threats to your house.  Remind them that it was the right that created the precedent that allowed sanctuary cities and prevented local governments from enforcing federal gun control laws and they either ignore you or send assassins to your home.
> 
> Yeah, they've sent people to shoot into my house.  For five years I had a stalker that followed me day and night until I put a bounty out on him and it was substantial.  So, yeah, I'm sure about what I'm telling you.
> 
> BTW, if you leave the right alone, they are advocating enforcing immigration laws that were designed to dilute the white vote and marginalize the whites.  All you have to do is remain silent and they will give America away to foreigners.  Just make sure they come in _"legally_" as the right erroneously calls it.  But, yeah, I'm sure of it.
Click to expand...


Your threads end up that way because most people don't want to read your white supremacist lunacy. Whites are  descendants of immigrants. Your ass is a descendant of immigrants. That's because this was not the white mans land.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing you have established is your perverted, malicious willingness to throw millions of people under the bus, to greedily grab whatever you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> You are very strange and it sounds like you're becoming afraid of me
> 
> Good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU sound very strange, with an uncanny ability to fail to understand things ...aka Stupid.
Click to expand...

LOL, you think I don't understand?  I have to deal with people like you all of the time.  That's how I know you so well.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I started my own business on practically nothing and built it up, and was successful that way.
> 
> 
> 
> I started by own business on practically nothing and built it up, and was successful that way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But now you work in some kind of job doing computer work, for which you have certs from Microsoft, right ?
Click to expand...

I was mocking you <smh>


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  *Don't fill out the questionnaire*. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit.  I just checked on the City of Treasure Island's website and they have an open position for a city planner.  I examined their employment application and there is NOTHING in it that requires a candidate to indicate their protected class status *AS WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG*.  This is the only reference to EEO in the application
> 
> *The City has an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy posted in the Human Resources Office. We believe that one of our greatest strengths as an organization is the diversity of our people.*
> 
> Persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will also be checked for the following: Driver License check; local, state, and national criminal history record check; verification of all information on application; background investigation that includes interviews with previous employers and others who can attest to your work habits, qualifications, and character. A credit report may be made for some positions.Among other requirements, persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will:Complete the Immigration & Naturalization Form I-9; be fingerprinted by the City’s Police Department; take an employee loyalty oath; and provide copies of any required licenses or certifications.
> 
> The City of Treasure Island collects the social security number of employees and applicants for employment for the following purposes: identification and verification; credit worthiness; benefit processing, and tax reporting. Social security numbers may also be used as a unique numeric identifier and may be used for search purposes.If you have any questions, feel free to ask anyone in the Human Resources Office.​
> Hyperlink to the Job Posting
> Hyperlink to the Job Appication
Click to expand...


No protection is a dumb ass. He can't prove anything so all he can do is lie about how facts and statistics are liberal tools.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sister" ?  I thought that ghetto beast was a man.  Well, racism has no sex boundaries.
Click to expand...

Ghetto?  Why haven't you answered why the white people won't let you live near them?


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except you aren't quoting the facts and you're the one with an agenda. I think I  know what my personal situation is. You are the one with the circus son, and I've been on TV/Radio. I have been able to bring suburban whites into the middle of the hood so they can understand what damage racism has caused. If we  ever debate, I'm going to school you. Because you're a clown trying to peddle race baited garbage the constitution was ratified to end. Unalienable rights can't be taken and all the government did was insure everybody, not just whites, were able to enjoy those rights. There are not two classes, nothing you said was true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything I said was true and the original concept of two classes of citizenship was taught by accredited law schools only a quarter of a century ago.  You've done nothing save of social media and made a career of hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Drapetomania was also taught as a legitimate medical disorder too. You and no protection are the only ones that hate around here. Your argument is a load of Georgia southern white racist bullshit. I'm quite sure that was taught in southern law schools with the rest of that lost cause crap. Now go take your claim to the supreme court since it's so true.
Click to expand...

Lost cause.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sister" ?  I thought that ghetto beast was a man.  Well, racism has no sex boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ghetto?  Why haven't you answered why the white people won't let you live near them?
Click to expand...

What have you been taking ? LSD ? Mescaline ? Hashish ?


----------



## IM2

no protection, tigerred is a strong sister who doesn't tolerate punk ass white racists. Just like newsvine. You can't handle either one of them old saltine.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  *Don't fill out the questionnaire*. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit.  I just checked on the City of Treasure Island's website and they have an open position for a city planner.  I examined their employment application and there is NOTHING in it that requires a candidate to indicate their protected class status *AS WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG*.  This is the only reference to EEO in the application
> 
> *The City has an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy posted in the Human Resources Office. We believe that one of our greatest strengths as an organization is the diversity of our people.*
> 
> Persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will also be checked for the following: Driver License check; local, state, and national criminal history record check; verification of all information on application; background investigation that includes interviews with previous employers and others who can attest to your work habits, qualifications, and character. A credit report may be made for some positions.Among other requirements, persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will:Complete the Immigration & Naturalization Form I-9; be fingerprinted by the City’s Police Department; take an employee loyalty oath; and provide copies of any required licenses or certifications.
> 
> The City of Treasure Island collects the social security number of employees and applicants for employment for the following purposes: identification and verification; credit worthiness; benefit processing, and tax reporting. Social security numbers may also be used as a unique numeric identifier and may be used for search purposes.If you have any questions, feel free to ask anyone in the Human Resources Office.​
> Hyperlink to the Job Posting
> Hyperlink to the Job Appication
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No protection is a dumb ass. He can't prove anything so all he can do is lie about how facts and statistics are liberal tools.
Click to expand...

I proved AA is in full force at 2 VA hospitals and one job center.  Anybody can visit to verify.  Even you, dumbo.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, the harm was 40 years of being deprived of a career, plus 5 years of college down the drain. Add to that numerous jobs lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to quantify that in monetary amounts with supporting documention correct?  Becasue a nebulous claim of "5 years of college down the drain" and "40 years of being deprived of a career" is not adequate.  Nobody is GUARANTEED the career of their choice, especially if for whatever reasons they cannot meet the qualifications to hold that position.  On one hand you claim to have had a wildly successful life and career, then on the other you're bitching about "40 years of being deprived of a career".  Which is it?  And nobody who completes 5 years of college and comes away with at least one degree considers their 5 years of secondary education as having gone down the drain, unless they're a complete idiot.  Having a college degree puts you ahead of other candidates that don't have a college degree unless it's a requirement *and *as long as you don't have any other disqualifiers or red flags in your background.
> 
> Lots of people start off down one path and then end up in another or similar field, sometimes for better sometimes for worse.  But I would bet my last dollar that any lack of success on your part has more to do with your entitlement mentality than anything that affirmative action has caused.  For some reason, you think you should have had a certain life that involved graduate school and being a city planner.  If that's what I wanted to do, there is no way I would have let anyone stand in my way and keep me from achieving my goal.
> 
> Some info
> 
> *View attachment 301826*
> *What you need to know*
> Overview
> 
> Urban and regional planners develop land use plans and programs that help create communities, accommodate population growth and revitalize physical facilities in towns, cities, counties, and metropolitan areas.
> 
> What skills are needed?
> 
> Analytical skills: Urban and regional planners analyze information and data from a variety of sources, such as market research studies, censuses, and environmental impact studies. They use statistical techniques and technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in their analyses to determine the significance of the data.
> Communication skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to communicate clearly and effectively because they interact with colleagues and stakeholders, prepare research reports, give presentations, and meet with a wide variety of audiences, including public officials, interest groups, and community members.
> Decision-Making skills: Urban and regional planners must weigh all possible planning options and combine analysis, creativity, and realism to choose the appropriate action or plan.
> Leadership skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to manage projects, which may include overseeing tasks and planning assignments.
> What is the pay?
> The average pay for urban and regional planners in the United States ranges from $45,180 to $114,170 as of May 2018.
> 
> The specific pay depends on factors such as level of experience, education and training, geographic location, and specific industry.
> 
> What education is required?
> Most urban and regional planners have a master’s degree from an accredited urban or regional planning program. *Candidates with a bachelor’s degree typically need work experience in planning, public policy, or a related field*.
> 
> Master’s degree programs accept students with a wide range of undergraduate backgrounds. However, *many candidates who enter these programs have a bachelor’s degree in economics, geography, political science, or environmental design*.
> 
> Discover some of the courses you will take pursuing a degree in Urban and Regional Planning.​
> So take what you've earned over the last 40 years and subtract that on a year-by-year basis from what you would have earned as a city planner and you start to come up with your claimed damages.  Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I don't respond to posts this long
> 2. I don't even read them
> 3. It's your turn to answer MY questions, Ms Question Mark
Click to expand...

Yeah, just what I thought.  All you want to do is whine and blame others for your failures and shortcomings in life.

Don't worry, the attorneys know how to calculate it.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> no protection, tigerred is a strong sister who doesn't tolerate punk ass white racists. Just like newsvine. You can't handle either one of them old saltine.


I've shredded both of them in this thread, and you too, punk ass black racist, scared rabbit.  

You gonna answer my question about military service, or you gonna keep running. ?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> In my case, the harm was 40 years of being deprived of a career, plus 5 years of college down the drain. Add to that numerous jobs lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you should be able to quantify that in monetary amounts with supporting documention correct?  Becasue a nebulous claim of "5 years of college down the drain" and "40 years of being deprived of a career" is not adequate.  Nobody is GUARANTEED the career of their choice, especially if for whatever reasons they cannot meet the qualifications to hold that position.  On one hand you claim to have had a wildly successful life and career, then on the other you're bitching about "40 years of being deprived of a career".  Which is it?  And nobody who completes 5 years of college and comes away with at least one degree considers their 5 years of secondary education as having gone down the drain, unless they're a complete idiot.  Having a college degree puts you ahead of other candidates that don't have a college degree unless it's a requirement *and *as long as you don't have any other disqualifiers or red flags in your background.
> 
> Lots of people start off down one path and then end up in another or similar field, sometimes for better sometimes for worse.  But I would bet my last dollar that any lack of success on your part has more to do with your entitlement mentality than anything that affirmative action has caused.  For some reason, you think you should have had a certain life that involved graduate school and being a city planner.  If that's what I wanted to do, there is no way I would have let anyone stand in my way and keep me from achieving my goal.
> 
> Some info
> 
> *View attachment 301826*
> *What you need to know*
> Overview
> 
> Urban and regional planners develop land use plans and programs that help create communities, accommodate population growth and revitalize physical facilities in towns, cities, counties, and metropolitan areas.
> 
> What skills are needed?
> 
> Analytical skills: Urban and regional planners analyze information and data from a variety of sources, such as market research studies, censuses, and environmental impact studies. They use statistical techniques and technologies such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) in their analyses to determine the significance of the data.
> Communication skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to communicate clearly and effectively because they interact with colleagues and stakeholders, prepare research reports, give presentations, and meet with a wide variety of audiences, including public officials, interest groups, and community members.
> Decision-Making skills: Urban and regional planners must weigh all possible planning options and combine analysis, creativity, and realism to choose the appropriate action or plan.
> Leadership skills: Urban and regional planners must be able to manage projects, which may include overseeing tasks and planning assignments.
> What is the pay?
> The average pay for urban and regional planners in the United States ranges from $45,180 to $114,170 as of May 2018.
> 
> The specific pay depends on factors such as level of experience, education and training, geographic location, and specific industry.
> 
> What education is required?
> Most urban and regional planners have a master’s degree from an accredited urban or regional planning program. *Candidates with a bachelor’s degree typically need work experience in planning, public policy, or a related field*.
> 
> Master’s degree programs accept students with a wide range of undergraduate backgrounds. However, *many candidates who enter these programs have a bachelor’s degree in economics, geography, political science, or environmental design*.
> 
> Discover some of the courses you will take pursuing a degree in Urban and Regional Planning.​
> So take what you've earned over the last 40 years and subtract that on a year-by-year basis from what you would have earned as a city planner and you start to come up with your claimed damages.  Can you do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. I don't respond to posts this long
> 2. I don't even read them
> 3. It's your turn to answer MY questions, Ms Question Mark
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, just what I thought.  All you want to do is whine and blame others for your failures and shortcomings in life.
> 
> Don't worry, the attorneys know how to calculate it.
Click to expand...

No worry on my part.  How about you ? You worried about answering my questions ?  Worried about taking my quizzes ?  You could just leave the thread, and go hide out somewhere.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> If you think that would be difficult, that's just another example of your incompetence. And you still haven't answered my questions, or taken my quizzes. Get to work.


I never said it was difficult, I pretty sure I said that you would find it difficult mainly because I figure you'd be unable to substantiate your claims, if you can't even outline them properly.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sister" ?  I thought that ghetto beast was a man.  Well, racism has no sex boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ghetto?  Why haven't you answered why the white people won't let you live near them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What have you been taking ? LSD ? Mescaline ? Hashish ?
Click to expand...

That's not an answer.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> No worry on my part. How about you ? You worried about answering my questions ? Worried about taking my quizzes ? You could just leave the thread, and go hide out somewhere.


Your quizz is made up bullshit.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *There is nothing supreme about white ppl. Any time one race, ie whites, who have been afforded the red carpet treatment by virtue of skin color, since this country's conception, still struggles to maintain a good life for themselves, is not supreme, but rather pathetic. White ppl have been free their whole lives and you don't have your shit together by now, blame nobody but your votes and yourselves.
> 
> The only thing supreme about white ppl, is the fast food order I get from Taco Bell.*
> 
> 
> 
> Welcome back sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Sister" ?  I thought that ghetto beast was a man.  Well, racism has no sex boundaries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ghetto?  Why haven't you answered why the white people won't let you live near them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What have you been taking ? LSD ? Mescaline ? Hashish ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not an answer.
Click to expand...

You're the one who needs to come up some answers. You're past due.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No worry on my part. How about you ? You worried about answering my questions ? Worried about taking my quizzes ? You could just leave the thread, and go hide out somewhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Your quizz is made up bullshit.
Click to expand...

How would you know ?  You don't have a clue about it.  Do you ?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you think that would be difficult, that's just another example of your incompetence. And you still haven't answered my questions, or taken my quizzes. Get to work.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was difficult, I pretty sure I said that you would find it difficult mainly because I figure you'd be unable to substantiate your claims, if you can't even outline them properly.
Click to expand...

Have you forgotten what I asked you ?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
> 
> Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
Click to expand...

And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
Do you do this work right now ? 

Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
Click to expand...


The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The United States Supreme Court is rigged.  You come here bitching day in and day out.  You could go to court yourself.  But, you know damned well that body is a stacked deck.  If you don't know it, your real name would have to be Rip Van Winkle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.
> 
> Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has.  There is no point me going to court.  Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level.  I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't. Now since you have won 2 supreme court cases, you should have the standing to argue the case for the repeal of the 14th amendment.
Click to expand...


You don't understand how the system works, do you?  Since I protected my Preamble status, I have no standing to take the government to court.  What you are expecting is tantamount to a Mexican in Mexico suing ICE to become a citizen.  Why?  He is not subject to the jurisdiction of American courts and isn't present here, so he lacks standing.  Forget it.  You just proved you know NOTHING about the courts.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> From where I sit, you're the one bitching. When I see a problem I go to the appropriate source. This is why I was able to force the place I live to change city policy. You are talking about a constitutional amendment being illegal. Take the appropriate steps to challenge it or STFU. It's just that simple. The courts aren't rigged against whites. Ask Abigail Fischer who had a claim heard by the SCOTUS twice. I don't think anybody black or not white has been able to do this. You apparently know that your lunacy would be immediately discarded because your claim is fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.
> 
> Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has.  There is no point me going to court.  Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level.  I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't. Now since you have won 2 supreme court cases, you should have the standing to argue the case for the repeal of the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how the system works, do you?  Since I protected my Preamble status, I have no standing to take the government to court.  What you are expecting is tantamount to a Mexican in Mexico suing ICE to become a citizen.  Why?  He is not subject to the jurisdiction of American courts and isn't present here, so he lacks standing.  Forget it.  You just proved you know NOTHING about the courts.
Click to expand...


Lol! So now you're a sovereign citizen. You're a loony tune.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
Click to expand...

Cheek was a nutjob who believed he wasn't required to pay taxes.

Did you work for William Coulson?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Son I haven't been bitching about anything save of the lazy ass whites that don't get out, get involved, get a job, get educated and quit following political propaganda prostitutes around.
> 
> Insofar as my work, you keep telling me to go to court, but your dumb ass never has.  There is no point me going to court.  Those guys are legislating from the bench and most of them would shit on the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level.  I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't. Now since you have won 2 supreme court cases, you should have the standing to argue the case for the repeal of the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how the system works, do you?  Since I protected my Preamble status, I have no standing to take the government to court.  What you are expecting is tantamount to a Mexican in Mexico suing ICE to become a citizen.  Why?  He is not subject to the jurisdiction of American courts and isn't present here, so he lacks standing.  Forget it.  You just proved you know NOTHING about the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol! So now you're a sovereign citizen. You're a loony tune.
Click to expand...


If you look in a mirror, you know what you are.  As for loony tune?  You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe.    BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?

You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life.  If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.

If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking?  You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass.  You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you.  Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure.  You are the reason white supremacists exist.  The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business.  Nobody will be bitching about them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheek was a nutjob who believed he wasn't required to pay taxes.
> 
> Did you work for William Coulson?
Click to expand...


And he *won* the case - but, when the government arrested him a second time, he gave up.  If not for the right wing, the tax protesters had that whole issue won.  The Fair Tax would have eliminate the income tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve.  The right didn't like winning, however.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
Click to expand...

Why would you have to give up personal details?  You said you were on the team, not that you're a named defendant or plaintiff.

I thought you were bragging about some brillance in connection with being a part of a winning Supreme Court case.  A win is a win I suppose but Cheek didn't have a case to begin with (60 allowances?)  And it's a criminal case for violation of the U.S. Tax Code.  Where is all of the constitutional law you're claiming to have forgotten?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you have to give up personal details?  You said you were on the team, not that you're a named defendant or plaintiff.
> 
> I thought you were bragging about some brillance in connection with being a part of a winning Supreme Court case.  A win is a win I suppose but Cheek didn't have a case to begin with (60 allowances?)  And it's a criminal case for violation of the U.S. Tax Code.  Where is all of the constitutional law you're claiming to have forgotten?
Click to expand...


I began as one of the defendants; however, the trial court judge told the plaintiff if they didn't take me off the suit, it would be dismissed without prejudice.  Then I got roped in because I was an officer of the corporation before the alleged wrongs were committed and contractually bound to help defend the corporation as I was not employed by them, but being paid until my contract expired.  Now, why the cross examination?  Are you wanting real information OR just something to criticize?

And your education in income tax law is???  You cannot answer that can you?


OMG.  You got spanked yet again.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
> 
> Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
Click to expand...





No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.  

Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  *Don't fill out the questionnaire*. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit.  I just checked on the City of Treasure Island's website and they have an open position for a city planner.  I examined their employment application and there is NOTHING in it that requires a candidate to indicate their protected class status *AS WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG*.  This is the only reference to EEO in the application
> 
> *The City has an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy posted in the Human Resources Office. We believe that one of our greatest strengths as an organization is the diversity of our people.*
> 
> Persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will also be checked for the following: Driver License check; local, state, and national criminal history record check; verification of all information on application; background investigation that includes interviews with previous employers and others who can attest to your work habits, qualifications, and character. A credit report may be made for some positions.Among other requirements, persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will:Complete the Immigration & Naturalization Form I-9; be fingerprinted by the City’s Police Department; take an employee loyalty oath; and provide copies of any required licenses or certifications.
> 
> The City of Treasure Island collects the social security number of employees and applicants for employment for the following purposes: identification and verification; credit worthiness; benefit processing, and tax reporting. Social security numbers may also be used as a unique numeric identifier and may be used for search purposes.If you have any questions, feel free to ask anyone in the Human Resources Office.​
> Hyperlink to the Job Posting
> Hyperlink to the Job Appication
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No protection is a dumb ass. He can't prove anything so all he can do is lie about how facts and statistics are liberal tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved AA is in full force at 2 VA hospitals and one job center.  Anybody can visit to verify.  Even you, dumbo.
Click to expand...

You have yet to prove any of the things you have falsely alleged.  Repeating the same lies and insults over and over does not constitute proof.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level.  I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't. Now since you have won 2 supreme court cases, you should have the standing to argue the case for the repeal of the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how the system works, do you?  Since I protected my Preamble status, I have no standing to take the government to court.  What you are expecting is tantamount to a Mexican in Mexico suing ICE to become a citizen.  Why?  He is not subject to the jurisdiction of American courts and isn't present here, so he lacks standing.  Forget it.  You just proved you know NOTHING about the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol! So now you're a sovereign citizen. You're a loony tune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are.  As for loony tune?  You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe.    BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life.  If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking?  You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass.  You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you.  Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure.  You are the reason white supremacists exist.  The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business.  Nobody will be bitching about them.
Click to expand...




Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you have to give up personal details?  You said you were on the team, not that you're a named defendant or plaintiff.
> 
> I thought you were bragging about some brillance in connection with being a part of a winning Supreme Court case.  A win is a win I suppose but Cheek didn't have a case to begin with (60 allowances?)  And it's a criminal case for violation of the U.S. Tax Code.  Where is all of the constitutional law you're claiming to have forgotten?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I began as one of the defendants; however, the trial court judge told the plaintiff if they didn't take me off the suit, it would be dismissed without prejudice.  Then I got roped in because I was an officer of the corporation before the alleged wrongs were committed and contractually bound to help defend the corporation as I was not employed by them, but being paid until my contract expired.  Now, why the cross examination?  Are you wanting real information OR just something to criticize?
> 
> And your education in income tax law is???  You cannot answer that can you?
> 
> 
> OMG.  You got spanked yet again.
Click to expand...

Oh so you weren't on the legal team?  You were a defendant?


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheek was a nutjob who believed he wasn't required to pay taxes.
> 
> Did you work for William Coulson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he *won* the case - but, when the government arrested him a second time, he gave up.  If not for the right wing, the tax protesters had that whole issue won.  The Fair Tax would have eliminate the income tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve.  The right didn't like winning, however.
Click to expand...


*Brief Fact Summary.* Defendant Cheek was convicted under a provision of the Federal Tax Code that makes it a felony to “willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof” for failing to file a tax return. *Defendant argued that he had acted on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation and based on this information he believed that he did not owe any taxes.*

*Cheek argued that he didn't believe he had to pay taxes because a right wing anti tax nutjob group had him believing he was not required to pay taxes. He was convicted of not paying taxes based on that and the court decided he did not pay based on a misunderstanding.*

*Synopsis of Rule of Law.* A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate the element of willfulness.

is guilty of a felony that “willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof.” *Defendant had failed to file a tax return required by law and argued in his defense that his failure to file was based on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation. Based on this information, Defendant asserted that he believed that he owed no taxes, including taxes on his wages. At trial the judge instructed the jury that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense and does not negate willfulness. *Defendant appealed the jury instruction.

*Issue. Can a mistake based on an honest but unreasonable belief negate the element of willfulness?*

Held. Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.
The general rule is that mistake of law is not a viable defense to a criminal prosecution. However, the statutes of tax law sometime make it difficult for the average citizen to know the extent of his/her duties under tax law. Therefore specific intent to violate the law is an element of certain Federal criminal tax offenses. The term “willfully” carves out an exception to the traditional rule that mistake of law is not a defense.

The Government, with regard to willfulness in violating tax law, has to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty and that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.

A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate willfulness.

Discussion. Ordinarily a mistake about the prohibition is not a defense, however where the prosecution must prove that a duty was intentionally violated, a mistake as to the existence of the prohibition negates that intent. The terms willfully and knowingly raise questions as to whether their use requires the defendant to be aware of the existence of the law he is charged with violating or just aware that he/she willfully or knowingly acted, regardless of whether he knew the actions were illegal.

Cheek v. United States - Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs

So he was not convicted of willful refusal to pay taxes, not that taxes are illegal. Your argument has consistently been disingenuous. You don't take your 14th amendment crap to the SCOTUS because it's an invalid argument which is in fact a lie.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them


Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are bitching. That's all your claim is. You don't go to court because you know that crazy mess you believe would get thrown out. You have no understanding of the constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level.  I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you don't. Now since you have won 2 supreme court cases, you should have the standing to argue the case for the repeal of the 14th amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't understand how the system works, do you?  Since I protected my Preamble status, I have no standing to take the government to court.  What you are expecting is tantamount to a Mexican in Mexico suing ICE to become a citizen.  Why?  He is not subject to the jurisdiction of American courts and isn't present here, so he lacks standing.  Forget it.  You just proved you know NOTHING about the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol! So now you're a sovereign citizen. You're a loony tune.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are.  As for loony tune?  You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe.    BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life.  If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking?  You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass.  You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you.  Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure.  You are the reason white supremacists exist.  The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business.  Nobody will be bitching about them.
Click to expand...


You are a white supremacist. The type of prick I used to body slam on the concrete when I was young. Your tantrum here shows that I am kicking your white racist ass. You're nothing and the first amendment says I have a right to do what I am doing. If you cannot live by these rules pack your bags and go.

The only failure here is you. 243 years of government help in every way and still today you're whining because you can't make it. You're a loser.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
Click to expand...


He's losing the debate. Blacks are kicking his ass intellectually. He can't take it.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
> 
> Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 301838
> 
> No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.
> 
> Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?
Click to expand...

So you have all those nice certs and no job.  Well, they might look very nice hanging on the wall, while you wait for your welfare check.

And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheek was a nutjob who believed he wasn't required to pay taxes.
> 
> Did you work for William Coulson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he *won* the case - but, when the government arrested him a second time, he gave up.  If not for the right wing, the tax protesters had that whole issue won.  The Fair Tax would have eliminate the income tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve.  The right didn't like winning, however.
Click to expand...

He didn't win his case, he was convicted of criminal charges and those charges were upheld on appeal.  What he did _win _was a retrial when the Supreme Court remanded his case back to the lower courts where he was again convicted of violation of the tax code.  He was convicted the first time as well as during his retrial and was required to serve time in prison, pay the back taxes he owed to the IRS and pay a fine of $62,000.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
> 
> Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 301838
> 
> No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.
> 
> Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have all those nice certs and no job.  Well, they might look very nice hanging on the wall, while you wait for your welfare check.
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
Click to expand...

LOL, I rest my case.  

Your response is why I explained to you that because I deal with individuals such as yourself on a regular basis I know you very well although you did surprise me a bit.  While I fully expected you to say something to try to denigrate my accomplishments It just didn't occur to me that you would think and claim (happily I'm sure) that I an unemployed.  

Are you sad now that you know I'm not unemployed?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.


No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.

And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 301838
> 
> No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.
> 
> Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have all those nice certs and no job.  Well, they might look very nice hanging on the wall, while you wait for your welfare check.
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, I rest my case.
> 
> Your response is why I explained to you that because I deal with individuals such as yourself on a regular basis I know you very well although you did surprise me a bit.  While I fully expected you to say something to try to denigrate my accomplishments It just didn't occur to me that you would think and claim (happily I'm sure) that I an unemployed.
> 
> Are you sad now that you know I'm not unemployed?
Click to expand...

So I should assume that to be true, when you are posting in here at 1 o'clock in the morning, and yesterday at 3:30 am.  Either you're doing this on your company's time, or you have no job.

Or maybe this could be yet another example of Black Privilege.

I,'m guessing you have no job and are just another lazy, welfare deadbeat.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
Click to expand...

I didn't look down on him.  I just mentioned as an example of your salary without a job.

Never even occurred to me to look down on them.  You brought that up. .Your thought, not mine . I guess you look down on them.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
> 
> 
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 301838
> 
> No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.
> 
> Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have all those nice certs and no job.  Well, they might look very nice hanging on the wall, while you wait for your welfare check.
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, I rest my case.
> 
> Your response is why I explained to you that because I deal with individuals such as yourself on a regular basis I know you very well although you did surprise me a bit.  While I fully expected you to say something to try to denigrate my accomplishments It just didn't occur to me that you would think and claim (happily I'm sure) that I an unemployed.
> 
> Are you sad now that you know I'm not unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So I should assume that to be true, when you are posting in here at 1 o'clock in the morning, and yesterday at 3:30 am.  Either you're doing this on your company's time, or you have no job.
> 
> Or maybe this could be yet another example of Black Privilege.
> 
> I,'m guessing you have no job and are just another lazy, welfare deadbeat.
Click to expand...

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?  And of projecting your own failings onto others?

So explain to me why my posting hours are indicative _*to you *_of the alleged phenomenon of "black prividege"


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't look down on him.  I just mentioned as an example of your salary without a job.
> 
> Never even occurred to me to look down on them.  You brought that up. .Your thought, not mine . I guess you look down on them.
Click to expand...

Of course you look down on him if you're using him to indicate someone at the lower rungs of the pay scale who is still higher paid than myself.  

I hold them in higher esteem than I do you.


----------



## IM2

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by Affirmative Action, Open Admissions, watered down college courses, open book tests, and other such foolish disgraces.
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 301838
> 
> No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.
> 
> Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have all those nice certs and no job.  Well, they might look very nice hanging on the wall, while you wait for your welfare check.
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, I rest my case.
> 
> Your response is why I explained to you that because I deal with individuals such as yourself on a regular basis I know you very well although you did surprise me a bit.  While I fully expected you to say something to try to denigrate my accomplishments It just didn't occur to me that you would think and claim (happily I'm sure) that I an unemployed.
> 
> Are you sad now that you know I'm not unemployed?
Click to expand...


These idiots assume a lot of things. noprotection is a loser. There are over 100 million Americans living well even if things were actually as noprotection claims. They aren't crying about AA 24-7-365. These idiots give away their racism every day then claim they aren't racists. We just have to be opposing their racism because we have failed, it can't be due to the fact that we are pissed off about it and want  the shit to stop. No matter  how much money, fame or accomplishments, we want whites to stop being racists.

noprotection has no done shit in his life. He can't compare to you, I know he could not do as we have done, because he's here crying about some shit he made up. And full props go to Steve who is closer to noprotection in age and by looking at his crib, noprotection couldn't live in his garage. In fact, noprotection would consider that an upgrade.

Whites like him are too stupid to be called ignorant. From 1776 until Johnson signed the executive order, everything that stump stupid bastard called AA was provided to whites. It took almost 30 years for the entire country to recognize this as policy, and still today you have whites like noprotection crying because he couldn't get what he thought he was entitled to only because of the color of his skin.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's true..no matter how hard YOU try.
> 
> JFK coined the phrase of Affirmative Action in an Executive Order. LBJ mandated AA in hiring practices by Federal contractors--in 1965, after the civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed. AA took another decade to firmly take hold. It is an  fact that White women probably benefited more than Black men. It is also a fact that most minorities had a shot at AA. It is also a fact that many minorities were able to get an education, enter professions such as medicine and the law--that might have not done so. Again, women, and particularly women of color...greatly benefited.
> 
> IMO..those sort of things are the only reparations that really even count
> 
> Anyone who thinks that white men are the victims of racism in this country is either a fool or attempting to pursue a revisionist and racist agenda. I guess that one could be both.
> White victim-hood is pathetic..and an excuse for losers to find a reason they can live with for their failures.
> 
> Timeline of Affirmative Action Milestones
> 
> 
> 
> You are absolutely clueless.  Read my posts in this thread and learn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LMAO. If anything, he will "learn" how backward your logic is, and how "clueless" you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How backward, dishonest, dishonorable, and pathetic YOU are, needing and relying on AA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm retired and don't personally need it, and it never benefitted me, but as long as backward thinking, socially inept, nutjobs like you, who would favor turning back time to the pre civil rights era still exist, future generations of minorities and females need protection from those like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Current and future generations of whites (including women,) need protection from racist criminals like you.
Click to expand...


LMAO! The only "crime" that I've ever committed thus far is stealing my own time by reading your insanity,

If you were in my state, you would be a  "5150" case, and would not be allowed to use a computer.


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.
Click to expand...


According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..

They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.

LMAO.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  *Don't fill out the questionnaire*. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are so full of shit.  I just checked on the City of Treasure Island's website and they have an open position for a city planner.  I examined their employment application and there is NOTHING in it that requires a candidate to indicate their protected class status *AS WE HAVE BEEN TELLING YOU ALL ALONG*.  This is the only reference to EEO in the application
> 
> *The City has an Equal Employment Opportunity Policy posted in the Human Resources Office. We believe that one of our greatest strengths as an organization is the diversity of our people.*
> 
> Persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will also be checked for the following: Driver License check; local, state, and national criminal history record check; verification of all information on application; background investigation that includes interviews with previous employers and others who can attest to your work habits, qualifications, and character. A credit report may be made for some positions.Among other requirements, persons being hired by the City of Treasure Island will:Complete the Immigration & Naturalization Form I-9; be fingerprinted by the City’s Police Department; take an employee loyalty oath; and provide copies of any required licenses or certifications.
> 
> The City of Treasure Island collects the social security number of employees and applicants for employment for the following purposes: identification and verification; credit worthiness; benefit processing, and tax reporting. Social security numbers may also be used as a unique numeric identifier and may be used for search purposes.If you have any questions, feel free to ask anyone in the Human Resources Office.​
> Hyperlink to the Job Posting
> Hyperlink to the Job Appication
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No protection is a dumb ass. He can't prove anything so all he can do is lie about how facts and statistics are liberal tools.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved AA is in full force at 2 VA hospitals and one job center.  Anybody can visit to verify.  Even you, dumbo.
Click to expand...


You did not "PROVE" anything, accept your ability to make up bullshit. 

Why would anyone here accept what you claim as an absolute fact?


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..
> 
> They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.
> 
> LMAO.
Click to expand...


Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.


----------



## IM2

*Florida unemployment:*
All:3.3%
*White:2.5%*
*Black:6.1%*
Hispanic:3.4%
Asian:2.2%

*Source:*_ EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data and Current Population Survey (CPS) data_


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
Click to expand...


Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.

In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.


protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm watching Hidden Figures again and each time I do it keeps reminding me of things that others took for granted that black people have always had to fight for.
> 
> Progress is being made IM2, just a little longer.  In some respects, it's already been won.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> . There are more whites in poverty in America than all non-whites combined . This was true even long before AA came along.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 4. Reparations should be paid to white victims of AA, and maybe a very small, very old group of Jim Crow victims.
> 
> These should all be paid from lawsuits, and the perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow, not the govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..
> 
> They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
Click to expand...



 Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach

 Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> *Florida unemployment:*
> All:3.3%
> *White:2.5%*
> *Black:6.1%*
> Hispanic:3.4%
> Asian:2.2%
> 
> *Source:*_ EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data and Current Population Survey (CPS) data_



Of course the village idiot will dismiss these facts as "liberal lies"....Watch.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q upUOTE="NewsVine_Mariyam, post: 23910940, member: 69274"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
> 
> 
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 301838
> 
> No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.
> 
> Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have all those nice certs and no job.  Well, they might look very nice hanging on the wall, while you wait for your welfare check.
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, I rest my case.
> 
> Your response is why I explained to you that because I deal with individuals such as yourself on a regular basis I know you very well although you did surprise me a bit.  While I fully expected you to say something to try to denigrate my accomplishments It just didn't occur to me that you would think and claim (happily I'm sure) that I an unemployed.
> 
> Are you sad now that you know I'm not unemployed?
Click to expand...


These idiots assume a lot of things. noprotection is a loser. There are over 100 million Americans living well even if things were actually as noprotection claims. They aren't crying about AA 24-7-365. These idiots give away their racism every day then claim they aren't racists. We just have to be opposing their racism because we have failed, it can't be due to the fact that we are pissed off about it and want  the shit to stop. No matter  how much money, fame or accomplishments, we want whites to stop being racists.

noprotection has no done shit in his life. He can't compare to you, I know he could not do as we have done, because he's here crying about some shit he made up. And full props go to Steve who is closer to noprotection in age and by looking at his crib, noprotection couldn't live in his garage. In fact, noprotection would consider that an upgrade.

Whites like him are too stupid to be called ignorant. From 1776 until Johnson signed the executive order, everything that stump stupid bastard called AA was provided to whites. It took almost 30 years for the entire country to recognize this as policy, and still today you have whites like noprotection crying because he couldn't get what he thought he was entitled to only because of the color of his skin.[/QUOTE]
There's no need for you to show off your need for AA, and how you desperately cling to it.  This thread is old and long enough, that you have clearly shown how pathetically dependent you are.

To you, AA is like an addicting drug. It not only has you tied to it, and insanely craving it 24/7, but it distorts your mind.

You can blabber your racist trash all you like, and post lies about me, which I refuted long ago in this thread, but everyone in this forum knows you for what you are. Just another AA addicted poor soul, with an empty resume.

I play 5 musical instruments, all on a professional level, and I teach in affiliation with 3 music schools.  (Violin, mandolin, & guitar).
 And IM2 ?  He does rap. LOL

After startup with just a few $$, I owned my own business for as long as I wished to, and expanded it to 3 branch offices in 3 counties.  IM2 could never have done this.  He would have needed an AA business loan.  He would have needed AA assisted business courses.

I also have 2 honorable discharges from the military - Army National Guard and US Army, with a rank of Specialist 5.  I could just see IM2 trying to get through boot camp.  OMG.  The drill sergeants (most of them black guys) would chew him up, and spit him out. Ha ha.

IM2: "Sergeant.  Can't I be excused from the 20 mile March to the rifle range ? Isn't there any AA for that ?"

Sergeant: "You get that pack on your back, and that (heavy) helmet on your head, and be ready to March in 10 minutes, or I'll put my steel toe combat boot right straight up your ass, boy."   



.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't look down on him.  I just mentioned as an example of your salary without a job.
> 
> Never even occurred to me to look down on them.  You brought that up. .Your thought, not mine . I guess you look down on them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you look down on him if you're using him to indicate someone at the lower rungs of the pay scale who is still higher paid than myself.
> 
> I hold them in higher esteem than I do you.
Click to expand...

No you don't.  You're the one who brought up the notion of looking down on him .   Your words and thought, not mine.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Florida unemployment:*
> All:3.3%
> *White:2.5%*
> *Black:6.1%*
> Hispanic:3.4%
> Asian:2.2%
> 
> *Source:*_ EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data and Current Population Survey (CPS) data_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the village idiot will dismiss these facts as "liberal lies"....Watch.
Click to expand...

Just because blacks get AA, that doesn't mean they're going to get up out of bed before noon, and go out to get a job.  Lots of those blacks are unemployed because they choose to be.  Easier to just collect a welfare check.  Right ,NVM ?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..
> 
> They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
Click to expand...

You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..
> 
> They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
Click to expand...


Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.

I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.

If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Florida unemployment:*
> All:3.3%
> *White:2.5%*
> *Black:6.1%*
> Hispanic:3.4%
> Asian:2.2%
> 
> *Source:*_ EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data and Current Population Survey (CPS) data_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the village idiot will dismiss these facts as "liberal lies"....Watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because blacks get AA, that doesn't mean they're going to get up out of bed before noon, and go out to get a job.  Lots of those blacks are unemployed because they choose to be.  Easier to just collect a welfare check.  Right ,NVM ?
Click to expand...


And how would you know that they choose to be unemployed?

You need to make up your mind. grandma. 
On one hand, you claim that "blacks are doing better than whites, and get better jobs".

Now that you were presented with facts regarding unemployment, you are stating that the unemployed blacks are unemployed by choice"

You can't have it both ways.

You need to call for one of the staff at the VA mental ward and request a medication check.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been on legal teams and we've won TWO cases at the United States Supreme Court level. I hate to burst your bubble, but I've forgotten more about constitutional level than you've ever known OR ARE CAPABLE OF LEARNING.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheek was a nutjob who believed he wasn't required to pay taxes.
> 
> Did you work for William Coulson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he *won* the case - but, when the government arrested him a second time, he gave up.  If not for the right wing, the tax protesters had that whole issue won.  The Fair Tax would have eliminate the income tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve.  The right didn't like winning, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Brief Fact Summary.* Defendant Cheek was convicted under a provision of the Federal Tax Code that makes it a felony to “willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof” for failing to file a tax return. *Defendant argued that he had acted on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation and based on this information he believed that he did not owe any taxes.*
> 
> *Cheek argued that he didn't believe he had to pay taxes because a right wing anti tax nutjob group had him believing he was not required to pay taxes. He was convicted of not paying taxes based on that and the court decided he did not pay based on a misunderstanding.*
> 
> *Synopsis of Rule of Law.* A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate the element of willfulness.
> 
> is guilty of a felony that “willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof.” *Defendant had failed to file a tax return required by law and argued in his defense that his failure to file was based on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation. Based on this information, Defendant asserted that he believed that he owed no taxes, including taxes on his wages. At trial the judge instructed the jury that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense and does not negate willfulness. *Defendant appealed the jury instruction.
> 
> *Issue. Can a mistake based on an honest but unreasonable belief negate the element of willfulness?*
> 
> Held. Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.
> The general rule is that mistake of law is not a viable defense to a criminal prosecution. However, the statutes of tax law sometime make it difficult for the average citizen to know the extent of his/her duties under tax law. Therefore specific intent to violate the law is an element of certain Federal criminal tax offenses. The term “willfully” carves out an exception to the traditional rule that mistake of law is not a defense.
> 
> The Government, with regard to willfulness in violating tax law, has to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty and that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.
> 
> A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate willfulness.
> 
> Discussion. Ordinarily a mistake about the prohibition is not a defense, however where the prosecution must prove that a duty was intentionally violated, a mistake as to the existence of the prohibition negates that intent. The terms willfully and knowingly raise questions as to whether their use requires the defendant to be aware of the existence of the law he is charged with violating or just aware that he/she willfully or knowingly acted, regardless of whether he knew the actions were illegal.
> 
> Cheek v. United States - Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs
> 
> So he was not convicted of willful refusal to pay taxes, not that taxes are illegal. Your argument has consistently been disingenuous. You don't take your 14th amendment crap to the SCOTUS because it's an invalid argument which is in fact a lie.
Click to expand...


You are playing semantics.  Our group did not agree with the previous group's assessment.  The government had to prove willful failure and they didn't.  We won the case.  That is the bottom line there.

As to whether the taxes are legal or not, I posted a video that you chose not to view.  That's on you.  Not only was the guy who WROTE the law interviewed, but so were people who worked *FOR* the IRS in *enforcing compliance*.

You can filibuster this issue until Hell freezes over, but it don't change the bottom line.  Yo have ZERO courtroom experience; ZERO legal education, ZERO knowledge of basic civics.  Your life revolves around browbeating people and trying to intimidate people on the Internet.  You're a pathetic failure.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q upUOTE="NewsVine_Mariyam, post: 23910940, member: 69274"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever hear of Microsoft?  You believe Microsoft has been infiltrated by an evil affirmative action virus or something that causes dumbed down certifications to fall into the laps of any black person who happens to be in the vicinity?
> 
> I obtainted my first cert, a Microsoft Certified System Engineer in 2000, my next two in 2002 (Certified Solutions Developer & SQL Server Database Administrator), another Solutions Developer in 2004 and my last in August 2019 (SQL Server Business Intelligence Developer*)
> 
> We're talking a 20 year period in which I never stopped studying, never stopped striving, never stopped learning or growing.
> 
> That's one of the main differences between me and you, between all of us and you all.
> 
> 
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 301838
> 
> No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.
> 
> Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have all those nice certs and no job.  Well, they might look very nice hanging on the wall, while you wait for your welfare check.
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, I rest my case.
> 
> Your response is why I explained to you that because I deal with individuals such as yourself on a regular basis I know you very well although you did surprise me a bit.  While I fully expected you to say something to try to denigrate my accomplishments It just didn't occur to me that you would think and claim (happily I'm sure) that I an unemployed.
> 
> Are you sad now that you know I'm not unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These idiots assume a lot of things. noprotection is a loser. There are over 100 million Americans living well even if things were actually as noprotection claims. They aren't crying about AA 24-7-365. These idiots give away their racism every day then claim they aren't racists. We just have to be opposing their racism because we have failed, it can't be due to the fact that we are pissed off about it and want  the shit to stop. No matter  how much money, fame or accomplishments, we want whites to stop being racists.
> 
> noprotection has no done shit in his life. He can't compare to you, I know he could not do as we have done, because he's here crying about some shit he made up. And full props go to Steve who is closer to noprotection in age and by looking at his crib, noprotection couldn't live in his garage. In fact, noprotection would consider that an upgrade.
> 
> Whites like him are too stupid to be called ignorant. From 1776 until Johnson signed the executive order, everything that stump stupid bastard called AA was provided to whites. It took almost 30 years for the entire country to recognize this as policy, and still today you have whites like noprotection crying because he couldn't get what he thought he was entitled to only because of the color of his skin.
Click to expand...

There's no need for you to show off your need for AA, and how you desperately cling to it.  This thread is old and long enough, that you have clearly shown how pathetically dependent you are.

To you, AA is like an addicting drug. It not only has you tied to it, and insanely craving it 24/7, but it distorts your mind.

You can blabber your racist trash all you like, and post lies about me, which I refuted long ago in this thread, but everyone in this forum knows you for what you are. Just another AA addicted poor soul, with an empty resume.

I play 5 musical instruments, all on a professional level, and I teach in affiliation with 3 music schools.  (Violin, mandolin, & guitar).
 And IM2 ?  He does rap. LOL

After startup with just a few $$, I owned my own business for as long as I wished to, and expanded it to 3 branch offices in 3 counties.  IM2 could never have done this.  He would have needed an AA business loan.  He would have needed AA assisted business courses.

I also have 2 honorable discharges from the military - Army National Guard and US Army, with a rank of Specialist 5.  I could just see IM2 trying to get through boot camp.  OMG.  The drill sergeants (most of them black guys) would chew him up, and spit him out. Ha ha.

IM2: "Sergeant.  Can't I be excused from the 20 mile March to the rifle range ? Isn't there any AA for that ?"

Sergeant: "You get that pack on your back, and that (heavy) helmet on your head, and be ready to March in 10 minutes, or I'll put my steel toe combat boot right straight up your ass, boy."   



.[/QUOTE]

In spite of all of your delusions of granduer about your "success", you didn't manage to turn out too well. 

Did you?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
Click to expand...


I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.  

A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.  

Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.  

IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMFAO!

You sure know a lot of shady people!

So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be! 

Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
Click to expand...


I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.

I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't have to fight for squat. They get stuff thrown in their laps by Affirmative Action, even when they didn't earn it.  Unless demonstrated by past performance (ex. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas), no black person in a professional job can be trusted, because they all might have got where they are by
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep blaming black people for all of the ills that presently plague white Americans?  And YOU?
> Apparently you don't understand how lawsuits work nor how our government operates.  The "perpetrators of AA and Jim Crow" - that would be the government that you just indicated should be excluded.  They're the ones who drafted and passed the laws and then enforced the discriminatory policies, practices and statutes.
> 
> But just to humor me, how would you determine who and how someone has been harmed by affirmative action?  Damages can't be paid unless you can show how you were harmed, that *the act that caused the harm is unlawful* and that *affirmative action was the proximate cause of said harm*
> 
> In law, a *proximate cause* is an event sufficiently related to an injury that the courts deem the event to be the *cause* of that injury. There are two types of causation in the law: *cause*-in-fact, and *proximate* (or legal) *cause*.​Say for example, you apply for a managerial job and you were competing against a black female and she has a masters degree while you have a bachelors.  The employer prefers that the candidate have a master although it's not a requirement.  They select her over you.  From what I know of you, you would probably claim you were being discriminated against because they hired a black female who in your mind only got where she did because of affirmative action's alleged "unfair" advantage, when in actuality, she was more educated and met the requirements that they *desired*, not required.
> 
> So tell me how you would prove that you were racially discriminated against in this scenario due to affirmative action.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I blame all those who create, push, and support AA, no matter what color they are.  I also blame those who willingly receive it.
> 
> Instead, they could do what I have always done.  Don't fill out the questionnaire. Have some integrity and pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..
> 
> They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
Click to expand...

Lol!

I played a rugby tournament in Savannah. It's not Florida but that humidity down there is brutal. I have eaten gator meat. It was ok, but I won't make it a regular part of my diet.


----------



## IM2

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
Click to expand...


I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.
> 
> I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.
Click to expand...


We are debating right now.  You don't have to be on TV to debate.

Now I don't know who the hell you think you are but you have said that America was intended to be for whites only and that the 14th amendment, which makes blacks citizens was not legally ratified. You certainly don't think a black person with a sound mind is going to agree with that do you.

You don't have any facts to support your madness. The preamble does not say all white men are created equal, blacks had been here since 1619, the native Americans had been here 12,000 years, so this was not the white mans country. And as for my supposed racism, accusing blacks of hate just because we reject your white ethnostate agenda is the main tool white supremacists use.

So if you are not a white supremacist, you sure associate with them. And if you're not a white supremacist you have got to explain how your got that belief of America was only meant for whites. The bible doesn't justify the takeover, so this is not or never was New Jerusalem. Whites could not be the jews mentioned in the bible because the end as written comes in the middle east, not Europe.

The 14th amendment is a legally ratified amendment no matter what you say. Your entire argument is a bunch of Christian identity bullshit and the Christian identity is a white supremacist belief. So where you are at right now is in a place with a black man who is simply more studied about those like you than you expected.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
Click to expand...


The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:

"_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_

Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795

Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.

Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.

I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.

I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well in that case, this should be easy for you.  Which cases?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cheek was a nutjob who believed he wasn't required to pay taxes.
> 
> Did you work for William Coulson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he *won* the case - but, when the government arrested him a second time, he gave up.  If not for the right wing, the tax protesters had that whole issue won.  The Fair Tax would have eliminate the income tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve.  The right didn't like winning, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Brief Fact Summary.* Defendant Cheek was convicted under a provision of the Federal Tax Code that makes it a felony to “willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof” for failing to file a tax return. *Defendant argued that he had acted on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation and based on this information he believed that he did not owe any taxes.*
> 
> *Cheek argued that he didn't believe he had to pay taxes because a right wing anti tax nutjob group had him believing he was not required to pay taxes. He was convicted of not paying taxes based on that and the court decided he did not pay based on a misunderstanding.*
> 
> *Synopsis of Rule of Law.* A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate the element of willfulness.
> 
> is guilty of a felony that “willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof.” *Defendant had failed to file a tax return required by law and argued in his defense that his failure to file was based on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation. Based on this information, Defendant asserted that he believed that he owed no taxes, including taxes on his wages. At trial the judge instructed the jury that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense and does not negate willfulness. *Defendant appealed the jury instruction.
> 
> *Issue. Can a mistake based on an honest but unreasonable belief negate the element of willfulness?*
> 
> Held. Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.
> The general rule is that mistake of law is not a viable defense to a criminal prosecution. However, the statutes of tax law sometime make it difficult for the average citizen to know the extent of his/her duties under tax law. Therefore specific intent to violate the law is an element of certain Federal criminal tax offenses. The term “willfully” carves out an exception to the traditional rule that mistake of law is not a defense.
> 
> The Government, with regard to willfulness in violating tax law, has to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty and that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.
> 
> A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate willfulness.
> 
> Discussion. Ordinarily a mistake about the prohibition is not a defense, however where the prosecution must prove that a duty was intentionally violated, a mistake as to the existence of the prohibition negates that intent. The terms willfully and knowingly raise questions as to whether their use requires the defendant to be aware of the existence of the law he is charged with violating or just aware that he/she willfully or knowingly acted, regardless of whether he knew the actions were illegal.
> 
> Cheek v. United States - Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs
> 
> So he was not convicted of willful refusal to pay taxes, not that taxes are illegal. Your argument has consistently been disingenuous. You don't take your 14th amendment crap to the SCOTUS because it's an invalid argument which is in fact a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are playing semantics.  Our group did not agree with the previous group's assessment.  The government had to prove willful failure and they didn't.  We won the case.  That is the bottom line there.
> 
> As to whether the taxes are legal or not, I posted a video that you chose not to view.  That's on you.  Not only was the guy who WROTE the law interviewed, but so were people who worked *FOR* the IRS in *enforcing compliance*.
> 
> You can filibuster this issue until Hell freezes over, but it don't change the bottom line.  Yo have ZERO courtroom experience; ZERO legal education, ZERO knowledge of basic civics.  Your life revolves around browbeating people and trying to intimidate people on the Internet.  You're a pathetic failure.
Click to expand...


You don't know what I  have. I'm on the internet just like you are. The case was shown and things don't appear to be as you say. I'm retired. I do what I want. And what I have seen in this forum are a bunch of stormfront, daily stormer, national vanguard alt right maggots denigrating blacks in over 5,000 threads. So stop crying loser.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.
> 
> I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are debating right now.  You don't have to be on TV to debate.
> 
> Now I don't know who the hell you think you are but you have said that America was intended to be for whites only and that the 14th amendment, which makes blacks citizens was not legally ratified. You certainly don't think a black person with a sound mind is going to agree with that do you.
> 
> You don't have any facts to support your madness. The preamble does not say all white men are created equal, blacks had been here since 1619, the native Americans had been here 12,000 years, so this was not the white mans country. And as for my supposed racism, accusing blacks of hate just because we reject your white ethnostate agenda is the main tool white supremacists use.
> 
> So if you are not a white supremacist, you sure associate with them. And if you're not a white supremacist you have got to explain how your got that belief of America was only meant for whites. The bible doesn't justify the takeover, so this is not or never was New Jerusalem. Whites could not be the jews mentioned in the bible because the end as written comes in the middle east, not Europe.
> 
> The 14th amendment is a legally ratified amendment no matter what you say. Your entire argument is a bunch of Christian identity bullshit and the Christian identity is a white supremacist belief. So where you are at right now is in a place with a black man who is simply more studied about those like you than you expected.
Click to expand...



You are a complete and utter idiot. 

1)  This is NOT a debate forum

2)  Since it is obvious you have something to do with the ownership of this board, you are a liar and dishonest.  Others have been reprimanded for far less than you get to do here

3)  Not a swinging here has claimed the things you have

4)  IF your dumb ass had* READ* the opinion of Roger Taney in the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford, he most assuredly did say that the 14th Amendment was specific to the white race.  If his majority opinion wasn't 22 pages long, I'd post the whole damn thing

5)  I don't care who agrees with the facts;  you are a *LIAR*.  I've posted the laws and the cases more than 100 times since I've run across you.  I don't care if a black man agrees with me or not.  The facts do not have an agenda.  IF blacks want to live in a delusional world of believing that the 14th Amendment made them equal, that is their Right.

IF, OTOH, they see that the 14th Amendment took away Rights, made a false promise to you and you're here bitching 150 + years after the 14th Amendment was passed, something is wrong.  Were the white supremacists of old correct?  Are you lacking in the IQ department? 

IF the law was legally adopted, you made the case of the racists back in the 1970s - 1990s.  You would be biologically inferior to the whites because making you legally equal hasn't shut your babbling idiocy down.  Now, do I think all blacks agree with you?  When judges, legal researchers, historians, elected leaders, and civic leaders agree with me, your criticisms don't carry a Hell of a lot of weight.  Fact is, I ran across a group of about ten black kids under 25 that DID study this and were quite convinced that the 14th Amendment added to their slavery.,

Now, you're little debate where you get to be the moderator and judge is bullshit. AND YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED!!!!!  You are probably a white racist because you know more about than I do and I worked around the cream of the crop for a couple of years.  You are a fake and a phony.  Not all black people buy IM2's lies and bullshit:

Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement | Equality and the 14th Amendment | Constitution USA  | PBS

Can anybody here give me a link wherein these groups this half wit is yapping about has white supremacists talking about the fact *unalienable* Rights were nullified by the 14th Amendment?  Just because you cannot try the constitutionality of the 14th amendment in a kangaroo court does not mean that the facts are not facts:

14th Amendment

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> The first Cheek v. US  (Cheek didn't like to win)   and the other case would require me giving up personal details.
> 
> 
> 
> Cheek was a nutjob who believed he wasn't required to pay taxes.
> 
> Did you work for William Coulson?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he *won* the case - but, when the government arrested him a second time, he gave up.  If not for the right wing, the tax protesters had that whole issue won.  The Fair Tax would have eliminate the income tax, the IRS and the Federal Reserve.  The right didn't like winning, however.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Brief Fact Summary.* Defendant Cheek was convicted under a provision of the Federal Tax Code that makes it a felony to “willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof” for failing to file a tax return. *Defendant argued that he had acted on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation and based on this information he believed that he did not owe any taxes.*
> 
> *Cheek argued that he didn't believe he had to pay taxes because a right wing anti tax nutjob group had him believing he was not required to pay taxes. He was convicted of not paying taxes based on that and the court decided he did not pay based on a misunderstanding.*
> 
> *Synopsis of Rule of Law.* A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate the element of willfulness.
> 
> is guilty of a felony that “willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof.” *Defendant had failed to file a tax return required by law and argued in his defense that his failure to file was based on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation. Based on this information, Defendant asserted that he believed that he owed no taxes, including taxes on his wages. At trial the judge instructed the jury that an honest but unreasonable belief is not a defense and does not negate willfulness. *Defendant appealed the jury instruction.
> 
> *Issue. Can a mistake based on an honest but unreasonable belief negate the element of willfulness?*
> 
> Held. Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.
> The general rule is that mistake of law is not a viable defense to a criminal prosecution. However, the statutes of tax law sometime make it difficult for the average citizen to know the extent of his/her duties under tax law. Therefore specific intent to violate the law is an element of certain Federal criminal tax offenses. The term “willfully” carves out an exception to the traditional rule that mistake of law is not a defense.
> 
> The Government, with regard to willfulness in violating tax law, has to prove that the law imposed a duty on the defendant, that the defendant knew of this duty and that the defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.
> 
> A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate willfulness.
> 
> Discussion. Ordinarily a mistake about the prohibition is not a defense, however where the prosecution must prove that a duty was intentionally violated, a mistake as to the existence of the prohibition negates that intent. The terms willfully and knowingly raise questions as to whether their use requires the defendant to be aware of the existence of the law he is charged with violating or just aware that he/she willfully or knowingly acted, regardless of whether he knew the actions were illegal.
> 
> Cheek v. United States - Case Brief for Law Students | Casebriefs
> 
> So he was not convicted of willful refusal to pay taxes, not that taxes are illegal. Your argument has consistently been disingenuous. You don't take your 14th amendment crap to the SCOTUS because it's an invalid argument which is in fact a lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are playing semantics.  Our group did not agree with the previous group's assessment.  The government had to prove willful failure and they didn't.  We won the case.  That is the bottom line there.
> 
> As to whether the taxes are legal or not, I posted a video that you chose not to view.  That's on you.  Not only was the guy who WROTE the law interviewed, but so were people who worked *FOR* the IRS in *enforcing compliance*.
> 
> You can filibuster this issue until Hell freezes over, but it don't change the bottom line.  Yo have ZERO courtroom experience; ZERO legal education, ZERO knowledge of basic civics.  Your life revolves around browbeating people and trying to intimidate people on the Internet.  You're a pathetic failure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know what I  have. I'm on the internet just like you are. The case was shown and things don't appear to be as you say. I'm retired. I do what I want. And what I have seen in this forum are a bunch of stormfront, daily stormer, national vanguard alt right maggots denigrating blacks in over 5,000 threads. So stop crying loser.
Click to expand...


Now you're lying about the outcome of the case after you admitted the outcome.  What an idiot!


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
Click to expand...


I have no problem with the facts. The facts show that America was built upon a foundation of white supremacy. It is that white supremacy you want to return to. Yet you start crying because you get called a white supremacist. The first naturalization laws excluded people who were already here. The fact that it was racist is undisputed and that's why it's no longer the law. 

Your opposition to the 14th amendment is based on race but you try using the claim that it nullified the bill of rights. First off you ignore the fact that the unalienable rights everyone was supposed to have naturally, blacks did not have by written law. Your ignorance in this regard is the fact you used the 1790 Naturalization Act, which stripped unalienable rights from everyone who was not white. In all of your arguments you ignore anyone not white. The 14th amendment did not nullify the Bill of Rights and digging up a right wing legal interpretation doesn't change that.

You said those rights were given by God. That means they cannot be taken away.  I'm not talking about gun rights, I am talking about human rights. Limiting to right to use a gun is not the same as basic human freedom. You see after the preamble was written, the so called founders created this document called the constitution that defined our rights. The preamble is not the supreme law of the land.

Now you call me a racist, yet because I know what racism is, I know I haven't said anything racist. You have made a claim that is racist anywhere you go.  There is nothing wrong with what I have said. If you found an all black forum and decided to "educate" them, you would get banned. You can only say what you do here. Or on Jerry Springer.

This is not about you kissing anyone's ass. It is about you making a racist claim that America belongs only to whites and that the 14th amendment is illegal because it hasn't been legally ratified so everybody here who is not white are not legal citizens.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.
> 
> I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are debating right now.  You don't have to be on TV to debate.
> 
> Now I don't know who the hell you think you are but you have said that America was intended to be for whites only and that the 14th amendment, which makes blacks citizens was not legally ratified. You certainly don't think a black person with a sound mind is going to agree with that do you.
> 
> You don't have any facts to support your madness. The preamble does not say all white men are created equal, blacks had been here since 1619, the native Americans had been here 12,000 years, so this was not the white mans country. And as for my supposed racism, accusing blacks of hate just because we reject your white ethnostate agenda is the main tool white supremacists use.
> 
> So if you are not a white supremacist, you sure associate with them. And if you're not a white supremacist you have got to explain how your got that belief of America was only meant for whites. The bible doesn't justify the takeover, so this is not or never was New Jerusalem. Whites could not be the jews mentioned in the bible because the end as written comes in the middle east, not Europe.
> 
> The 14th amendment is a legally ratified amendment no matter what you say. Your entire argument is a bunch of Christian identity bullshit and the Christian identity is a white supremacist belief. So where you are at right now is in a place with a black man who is simply more studied about those like you than you expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
> 
> 1)  This is NOT a debate forum
> 
> 2)  Since it is obvious you have something to do with the ownership of this board, you are a liar and dishonest.  Others have been reprimanded for far less than you get to do here
> 
> 3)  Not a swinging here has claimed the things you have
> 
> 4)  IF your dumb ass had* READ* the opinion of Roger Taney in the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford, he most assuredly did say that the 14th Amendment was specific to the white race.  If his majority opinion wasn't 22 pages long, I'd post the whole damn thing
> 
> 5)  I don't care who agrees with the facts;  you are a *LIAR*.  I've posted the laws and the cases more than 100 times since I've run across you.  I don't care if a black man agrees with me or not.  The facts do not have an agenda.  IF blacks want to live in a delusional world of believing that the 14th Amendment made them equal, that is their Right.
> 
> IF, OTOH, they see that the 14th Amendment took away Rights, made a false promise to you and you're here bitching 150 + years after the 14th Amendment was passed, something is wrong.  Were the white supremacists of old correct?  Are you lacking in the IQ department?
> 
> IF the law was legally adopted, you made the case of the racists back in the 1970s - 1990s.  You would be biologically inferior to the whites because making you legally equal hasn't shut your babbling idiocy down.  Now, do I think all blacks agree with you?  When judges, legal researchers, historians, elected leaders, and civic leaders agree with me, your criticisms don't carry a Hell of a lot of weight.  Fact is, I ran across a group of about ten black kids under 25 that DID study this and were quite convinced that the 14th Amendment added to their slavery.,
> 
> Now, you're little debate where you get to be the moderator and judge is bullshit. AND YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED!!!!!  You are probably a white racist because you know more about than I do and I worked around the cream of the crop for a couple of years.  You are a fake and a phony.  Not all black people buy IM2's lies and bullshit:
> 
> Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement | Equality and the 14th Amendment | Constitution USA  | PBS
> 
> Can anybody here give me a link wherein these groups this half wit is yapping about has white supremacists talking about the fact *unalienable* Rights were nullified by the 14th Amendment?  Just because you cannot try the constitutionality of the 14th amendment in a kangaroo court does not mean that the facts are not facts:
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 
> Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]
Click to expand...


The Taney opinion is hailed as the worst decision in supreme court history. That's why it was overturned. And the 14th amendment didn't make us equal. Being born  did.

You're a loony tune boy. You have not quoted law unless it's one that's  been overturned. You're a joke.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> 4) IF your dumb ass had* READ* the opinion of Roger Taney in the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford, he most assuredly did say that the 14th Amendment was specific to the white race. If his majority opinion wasn't 22 pages long, I'd post the whole damn thing



Roger Taney was dead for 4 years when the 14th Amendment was adopted. Dred Scott v. Sandford was decided 11 years before the 14th Amendment. I never did take candy from babies, but this is probably easier.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't explain how you would determine who suffered harm from affirmative action so that they could be paid "reparations" via a lawsuit.  You can't get from A to Z without going through the entire alphabet at least in this case, so state your case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..
> 
> They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
Click to expand...

1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
  I teach music.
2. There is no rent control in Florida.
3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Florida unemployment:*
> All:3.3%
> *White:2.5%*
> *Black:6.1%*
> Hispanic:3.4%
> Asian:2.2%
> 
> *Source:*_ EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data and Current Population Survey (CPS) data_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the village idiot will dismiss these facts as "liberal lies"....Watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because blacks get AA, that doesn't mean they're going to get up out of bed before noon, and go out to get a job.  Lots of those blacks are unemployed because they choose to be.  Easier to just collect a welfare check.  Right ,NVM ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know that they choose to be unemployed?
> 
> You need to make up your mind. grandma.
> On one hand, you claim that "blacks are doing better than whites, and get better jobs".
> 
> Now that you were presented with facts regarding unemployment, you are stating that the unemployed blacks are unemployed by choice"
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> You need to call for one of the staff at the VA mental ward and request a medication check.
Click to expand...

Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
Gee, that was tough, huh ?
Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.
> 
> I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are debating right now.  You don't have to be on TV to debate.
> 
> Now I don't know who the hell you think you are but you have said that America was intended to be for whites only and that the 14th amendment, which makes blacks citizens was not legally ratified. You certainly don't think a black person with a sound mind is going to agree with that do you.
> 
> You don't have any facts to support your madness. The preamble does not say all white men are created equal, blacks had been here since 1619, the native Americans had been here 12,000 years, so this was not the white mans country. And as for my supposed racism, accusing blacks of hate just because we reject your white ethnostate agenda is the main tool white supremacists use.
> 
> So if you are not a white supremacist, you sure associate with them. And if you're not a white supremacist you have got to explain how your got that belief of America was only meant for whites. The bible doesn't justify the takeover, so this is not or never was New Jerusalem. Whites could not be the jews mentioned in the bible because the end as written comes in the middle east, not Europe.
> 
> The 14th amendment is a legally ratified amendment no matter what you say. Your entire argument is a bunch of Christian identity bullshit and the Christian identity is a white supremacist belief. So where you are at right now is in a place with a black man who is simply more studied about those like you than you expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
> 
> 1)  This is NOT a debate forum
> 
> 2)  Since it is obvious you have something to do with the ownership of this board, you are a liar and dishonest.  Others have been reprimanded for far less than you get to do here
> 
> 3)  Not a swinging here has claimed the things you have
> 
> 4)  IF your dumb ass had* READ* the opinion of Roger Taney in the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford, he most assuredly did say that the 14th Amendment was specific to the white race.  If his majority opinion wasn't 22 pages long, I'd post the whole damn thing
> 
> 5)  I don't care who agrees with the facts;  you are a *LIAR*.  I've posted the laws and the cases more than 100 times since I've run across you.  I don't care if a black man agrees with me or not.  The facts do not have an agenda.  IF blacks want to live in a delusional world of believing that the 14th Amendment made them equal, that is their Right.
> 
> IF, OTOH, they see that the 14th Amendment took away Rights, made a false promise to you and you're here bitching 150 + years after the 14th Amendment was passed, something is wrong.  Were the white supremacists of old correct?  Are you lacking in the IQ department?
> 
> IF the law was legally adopted, you made the case of the racists back in the 1970s - 1990s.  You would be biologically inferior to the whites because making you legally equal hasn't shut your babbling idiocy down.  Now, do I think all blacks agree with you?  When judges, legal researchers, historians, elected leaders, and civic leaders agree with me, your criticisms don't carry a Hell of a lot of weight.  Fact is, I ran across a group of about ten black kids under 25 that DID study this and were quite convinced that the 14th Amendment added to their slavery.,
> 
> Now, you're little debate where you get to be the moderator and judge is bullshit. AND YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED!!!!!  You are probably a white racist because you know more about than I do and I worked around the cream of the crop for a couple of years.  You are a fake and a phony.  Not all black people buy IM2's lies and bullshit:
> 
> Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement | Equality and the 14th Amendment | Constitution USA  | PBS
> 
> Can anybody here give me a link wherein these groups this half wit is yapping about has white supremacists talking about the fact *unalienable* Rights were nullified by the 14th Amendment?  Just because you cannot try the constitutionality of the 14th amendment in a kangaroo court does not mean that the facts are not facts:
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 
> Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]
Click to expand...

You're really citing Dred Scot as precedent?? The one decision that is commonly held to be the single worst decision the SCOTUS made? Now, I rank Citizen's United right up there as well--but really?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> [Q upUOTE="NewsVine_Mariyam, post: 23910940, member: 69274"]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And from all these illustrious certs you alleged to have received, have you ever gotten an actual JOB, to use them at ?
> Do you do this work right now ?
> 
> Or is your major work going down to the welfare office to pick up a check, and get recertified for THAT ?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 301838
> 
> No, I have not taken my latest certification out for a test drive yet.
> 
> Have you noticed that the average salary in my field is higher than the top range of the field you aspired to, even if you had been able to achieve your dreams?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you have all those nice certs and no job.  Well, they might look very nice hanging on the wall, while you wait for your welfare check.
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL, I rest my case.
> 
> Your response is why I explained to you that because I deal with individuals such as yourself on a regular basis I know you very well although you did surprise me a bit.  While I fully expected you to say something to try to denigrate my accomplishments It just didn't occur to me that you would think and claim (happily I'm sure) that I an unemployed.
> 
> Are you sad now that you know I'm not unemployed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These idiots assume a lot of things. noprotection is a loser. There are over 100 million Americans living well even if things were actually as noprotection claims. They aren't crying about AA 24-7-365. These idiots give away their racism every day then claim they aren't racists. We just have to be opposing their racism because we have failed, it can't be due to the fact that we are pissed off about it and want  the shit to stop. No matter  how much money, fame or accomplishments, we want whites to stop being racists.
> 
> noprotection has no done shit in his life. He can't compare to you, I know he could not do as we have done, because he's here crying about some shit he made up. And full props go to Steve who is closer to noprotection in age and by looking at his crib, noprotection couldn't live in his garage. In fact, noprotection would consider that an upgrade.
> 
> Whites like him are too stupid to be called ignorant. From 1776 until Johnson signed the executive order, everything that stump stupid bastard called AA was provided to whites. It took almost 30 years for the entire country to recognize this as policy, and still today you have whites like noprotection crying because he couldn't get what he thought he was entitled to only because of the color of his skin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no need for you to show off your need for AA, and how you desperately cling to it.  This thread is old and long enough, that you have clearly shown how pathetically dependent you are.
> 
> To you, AA is like an addicting drug. It not only has you tied to it, and insanely craving it 24/7, but it distorts your mind.
> 
> You can blabber your racist trash all you like, and post lies about me, which I refuted long ago in this thread, but everyone in this forum knows you for what you are. Just another AA addicted poor soul, with an empty resume.
> 
> I play 5 musical instruments, all on a professional level, and I teach in affiliation with 3 music schools.  (Violin, mandolin, & guitar).
> And IM2 ?  He does rap. LOL
> 
> After startup with just a few $$, I owned my own business for as long as I wished to, and expanded it to 3 branch offices in 3 counties.  IM2 could never have done this.  He would have needed an AA business loan.  He would have needed AA assisted business courses.
> 
> I also have 2 honorable discharges from the military - Army National Guard and US Army, with a rank of Specialist 5.  I could just see IM2 trying to get through boot camp.  OMG.  The drill sergeants (most of them black guys) would chew him up, and spit him out. Ha ha.
> 
> IM2: "Sergeant.  Can't I be excused from the 20 mile March to the rifle range ? Isn't there any AA for that ?"
> 
> Sergeant: "You get that pack on your back, and that (heavy) helmet on your head, and be ready to March in 10 minutes, or I'll put my steel toe combat boot right straight up your ass, boy."
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


In spite of all of your delusions of granduer about your "success", you didn't manage to turn out too well.

Did you?
[/QUOTE]
I turned out fine.  And better than most.  How many people do you know have a collection of over 100 drawings & paintings they did, over 100 poems they've written, a few copyrighted movie scripts, and play 5 musical instruments on a professional level ?

You will never attain 1/4 of this.

Eat your heart out, commoner.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
Click to expand...

When a person says racial discrimination is OK as long as whites are the victims and blacks are the beneficiaries, then he should not get pissy when he's called a black supremacist.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with the facts. The facts show that America was built upon a foundation of white supremacy. It is that white supremacy you want to return to. Yet you start crying because you get called a white supremacist. The first naturalization laws excluded people who were already here. The fact that it was racist is undisputed and that's why it's no longer the law.
> 
> Your opposition to the 14th amendment is based on race but you try using the claim that it nullified the bill of rights. First off you ignore the fact that the unalienable rights everyone was supposed to have naturally, blacks did not have by written law. Your ignorance in this regard is the fact you used the 1790 Naturalization Act, which stripped unalienable rights from everyone who was not white. In all of your arguments you ignore anyone not white. The 14th amendment did not nullify the Bill of Rights and digging up a right wing legal interpretation doesn't change that.
> 
> You said those rights were given by God. That means they cannot be taken away.  I'm not talking about gun rights, I am talking about human rights. Limiting to right to use a gun is not the same as basic human freedom. You see after the preamble was written, the so called founders created this document called the constitution that defined our rights. The preamble is not the supreme law of the land.
> 
> Now you call me a racist, yet because I know what racism is, I know I haven't said anything racist. You have made a claim that is racist anywhere you go.  There is nothing wrong with what I have said. If you found an all black forum and decided to "educate" them, you would get banned. You can only say what you do here. Or on Jerry Springer.
> 
> This is not about you kissing anyone's ass. It is about you making a racist claim that America belongs only to whites and that the 14th amendment is illegal because it hasn't been legally ratified so everybody here who is not white are not legal citizens.
Click to expand...


*PART 1 OF THIS RESPONSE*

1)  The white people took this land via treaties and the Right of Conquest

2)  Yep.  the Constitution did exclude blacks, but that is not the real reason for the 14th Amendment.  It's a bit more complicated than that

3)  As you are criticizing me, you're probably peering through your glasses wherein the glass was made in Japan (which claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.)  You're probably sitting on a chair made in one of the Koreas that are 98 + percent racially homogeneous while pecking lies on a keyboard, hooked to a computer made in China (which is well in excess of 90 percent Han Chinese.)  

Those countries and many others are homogeneous, but they are not white.  So, you think nothing of their "_supremacy_."  You don't bitch about the slavers who brought blacks to America NOR your black brethren that rounded up them up and sold them to the slavers.  Your hatred is reserved for the whites because you are not a damn bit better than anyone else.  *YOU ARE A BLACK SUPREMACIST
*
4)  You are wrong about* unalienable* Rights.  Naturalization is citizenship and *citizenship is a privilege*, NOT a Right.  Even the black people understand this concept.  THAT is why they supported the Democrats (via Ted Kennedy's lobbying efforts) when they force fed us the immigration laws that put in arbitrary numbers of people who could come to the United States.  Emmanuel Celler of the Hart - Cellar Act was the *Democrat* that introduced that legislation and Philip Hart was the *Democrat* Senator that helped him promote it.  NOW, you have a real problem IM2:

ALL of Trump's supporters are advocating for the strict enforcement of the immigration laws that the Democrats put into place.  The Democrats *real* agenda was to flood America with non-whites and subtly commit genocide on the installment plan.  Whites are only 1 in 13 of the world's population.  By allowing people to come from all other nations equally, your side advocated a displacement of the founders / framers of the country and Constitution.  They had to be eliminated, not protected while you sought this elusive "_equality_."

Oh I'm going to do this in two parts and hope that someone reads it other than you


----------



## Porter Rockwell

*PART 2 OF MY EARLIER RESPONSE
*
Donald Trump's supporters want the draconian immigration laws enforced.  So, given IM2's defintions and standards, none of them fit the category of white supremacist since they actually *demand* that everybody be forced to become a citizen.

That leaves IM2 having to deal with me

5)  I have been a proponent of *LIBERTY FOR ALL*.  Liberty, however, is not inclusive of citizenship.  If citizenship were an *unalienable* Right, the Democrats would not have set arbitrary numbers for people to come here and work; they would have afforded citizenship to anyone who could get a job when the Hart - Celler Act was introduced

6)  I have not said that the people who were born here under the 14th Amendment are or are not citizens.  IF the 14th Amendment were to be nullified, it would be problematic to address; however, they are citizens today, we have a constitutional ban on *ex post facto laws *and there is a wide body of case law that would protect existing citizens.  For example:

IF someone were born in this country and accepted as a citizen, they would retain it for the same reason that if someone moves onto your property and you take no steps to remove them, they get to stay due to a legal doctrine called *adverse possession*... and that is only one of the reasons.  You will have to study the bolded terms, not just look them up, but if we nullify the 14th Amendment, nobody is taking your current citizenship.

New rules for immigration and citizenship would have to rewritten, but then the protection of *unalienable* Rights would be debated.

7)  Human rights are not *unalienable* Rights.  Citizenship is not an *unalienable* Right. * You are arguing Black Supremacy because you are a Black Supremacist*.

8)  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *unalienable* Right and if you'd like a long post or two for me to prove it, I can oblige


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.
> 
> I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are debating right now.  You don't have to be on TV to debate.
> 
> Now I don't know who the hell you think you are but you have said that America was intended to be for whites only and that the 14th amendment, which makes blacks citizens was not legally ratified. You certainly don't think a black person with a sound mind is going to agree with that do you.
> 
> You don't have any facts to support your madness. The preamble does not say all white men are created equal, blacks had been here since 1619, the native Americans had been here 12,000 years, so this was not the white mans country. And as for my supposed racism, accusing blacks of hate just because we reject your white ethnostate agenda is the main tool white supremacists use.
> 
> So if you are not a white supremacist, you sure associate with them. And if you're not a white supremacist you have got to explain how your got that belief of America was only meant for whites. The bible doesn't justify the takeover, so this is not or never was New Jerusalem. Whites could not be the jews mentioned in the bible because the end as written comes in the middle east, not Europe.
> 
> The 14th amendment is a legally ratified amendment no matter what you say. Your entire argument is a bunch of Christian identity bullshit and the Christian identity is a white supremacist belief. So where you are at right now is in a place with a black man who is simply more studied about those like you than you expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
> 
> 1)  This is NOT a debate forum
> 
> 2)  Since it is obvious you have something to do with the ownership of this board, you are a liar and dishonest.  Others have been reprimanded for far less than you get to do here
> 
> 3)  Not a swinging here has claimed the things you have
> 
> 4)  IF your dumb ass had* READ* the opinion of Roger Taney in the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford, he most assuredly did say that the 14th Amendment was specific to the white race.  If his majority opinion wasn't 22 pages long, I'd post the whole damn thing
> 
> 5)  I don't care who agrees with the facts;  you are a *LIAR*.  I've posted the laws and the cases more than 100 times since I've run across you.  I don't care if a black man agrees with me or not.  The facts do not have an agenda.  IF blacks want to live in a delusional world of believing that the 14th Amendment made them equal, that is their Right.
> 
> IF, OTOH, they see that the 14th Amendment took away Rights, made a false promise to you and you're here bitching 150 + years after the 14th Amendment was passed, something is wrong.  Were the white supremacists of old correct?  Are you lacking in the IQ department?
> 
> IF the law was legally adopted, you made the case of the racists back in the 1970s - 1990s.  You would be biologically inferior to the whites because making you legally equal hasn't shut your babbling idiocy down.  Now, do I think all blacks agree with you?  When judges, legal researchers, historians, elected leaders, and civic leaders agree with me, your criticisms don't carry a Hell of a lot of weight.  Fact is, I ran across a group of about ten black kids under 25 that DID study this and were quite convinced that the 14th Amendment added to their slavery.,
> 
> Now, you're little debate where you get to be the moderator and judge is bullshit. AND YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED!!!!!  You are probably a white racist because you know more about than I do and I worked around the cream of the crop for a couple of years.  You are a fake and a phony.  Not all black people buy IM2's lies and bullshit:
> 
> Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement | Equality and the 14th Amendment | Constitution USA  | PBS
> 
> Can anybody here give me a link wherein these groups this half wit is yapping about has white supremacists talking about the fact *unalienable* Rights were nullified by the 14th Amendment?  Just because you cannot try the constitutionality of the 14th amendment in a kangaroo court does not mean that the facts are not facts:
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 
> Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Taney opinion is hailed as the worst decision in supreme court history. That's why it was overturned. And the 14th amendment didn't make us equal. Being born  did.
> 
> You're a loony tune boy. You have not quoted law unless it's one that's  been overturned. You're a joke.
Click to expand...


The *illegally ratified *14th Amendment was passed to rescind Dred Scott.  That decision was* NOT* overturned.  Once again you demonstrate your abject ignorance.  YOU ARE THE JOKE.

Even IF a court ever overturns Dred Scott, it does not change history.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.
> 
> I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are debating right now.  You don't have to be on TV to debate.
> 
> Now I don't know who the hell you think you are but you have said that America was intended to be for whites only and that the 14th amendment, which makes blacks citizens was not legally ratified. You certainly don't think a black person with a sound mind is going to agree with that do you.
> 
> You don't have any facts to support your madness. The preamble does not say all white men are created equal, blacks had been here since 1619, the native Americans had been here 12,000 years, so this was not the white mans country. And as for my supposed racism, accusing blacks of hate just because we reject your white ethnostate agenda is the main tool white supremacists use.
> 
> So if you are not a white supremacist, you sure associate with them. And if you're not a white supremacist you have got to explain how your got that belief of America was only meant for whites. The bible doesn't justify the takeover, so this is not or never was New Jerusalem. Whites could not be the jews mentioned in the bible because the end as written comes in the middle east, not Europe.
> 
> The 14th amendment is a legally ratified amendment no matter what you say. Your entire argument is a bunch of Christian identity bullshit and the Christian identity is a white supremacist belief. So where you are at right now is in a place with a black man who is simply more studied about those like you than you expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
> 
> 1)  This is NOT a debate forum
> 
> 2)  Since it is obvious you have something to do with the ownership of this board, you are a liar and dishonest.  Others have been reprimanded for far less than you get to do here
> 
> 3)  Not a swinging here has claimed the things you have
> 
> 4)  IF your dumb ass had* READ* the opinion of Roger Taney in the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford, he most assuredly did say that the 14th Amendment was specific to the white race.  If his majority opinion wasn't 22 pages long, I'd post the whole damn thing
> 
> 5)  I don't care who agrees with the facts;  you are a *LIAR*.  I've posted the laws and the cases more than 100 times since I've run across you.  I don't care if a black man agrees with me or not.  The facts do not have an agenda.  IF blacks want to live in a delusional world of believing that the 14th Amendment made them equal, that is their Right.
> 
> IF, OTOH, they see that the 14th Amendment took away Rights, made a false promise to you and you're here bitching 150 + years after the 14th Amendment was passed, something is wrong.  Were the white supremacists of old correct?  Are you lacking in the IQ department?
> 
> IF the law was legally adopted, you made the case of the racists back in the 1970s - 1990s.  You would be biologically inferior to the whites because making you legally equal hasn't shut your babbling idiocy down.  Now, do I think all blacks agree with you?  When judges, legal researchers, historians, elected leaders, and civic leaders agree with me, your criticisms don't carry a Hell of a lot of weight.  Fact is, I ran across a group of about ten black kids under 25 that DID study this and were quite convinced that the 14th Amendment added to their slavery.,
> 
> Now, you're little debate where you get to be the moderator and judge is bullshit. AND YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED!!!!!  You are probably a white racist because you know more about than I do and I worked around the cream of the crop for a couple of years.  You are a fake and a phony.  Not all black people buy IM2's lies and bullshit:
> 
> Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement | Equality and the 14th Amendment | Constitution USA  | PBS
> 
> Can anybody here give me a link wherein these groups this half wit is yapping about has white supremacists talking about the fact *unalienable* Rights were nullified by the 14th Amendment?  Just because you cannot try the constitutionality of the 14th amendment in a kangaroo court does not mean that the facts are not facts:
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 
> Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really citing Dred Scot as precedent?? The one decision that is commonly held to be the single worst decision the SCOTUS made? Now, I rank Citizen's United right up there as well--but really?
Click to expand...


The facts of history cannot be changed regardless of how unpopular.  AND if that decision were not the law, there would have been little pretext that the people would have supported to *illegally ratify* the 14th Amendment with... REALLY.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Porter Rockwell said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.
> 
> I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are debating right now.  You don't have to be on TV to debate.
> 
> Now I don't know who the hell you think you are but you have said that America was intended to be for whites only and that the 14th amendment, which makes blacks citizens was not legally ratified. You certainly don't think a black person with a sound mind is going to agree with that do you.
> 
> You don't have any facts to support your madness. The preamble does not say all white men are created equal, blacks had been here since 1619, the native Americans had been here 12,000 years, so this was not the white mans country. And as for my supposed racism, accusing blacks of hate just because we reject your white ethnostate agenda is the main tool white supremacists use.
> 
> So if you are not a white supremacist, you sure associate with them. And if you're not a white supremacist you have got to explain how your got that belief of America was only meant for whites. The bible doesn't justify the takeover, so this is not or never was New Jerusalem. Whites could not be the jews mentioned in the bible because the end as written comes in the middle east, not Europe.
> 
> The 14th amendment is a legally ratified amendment no matter what you say. Your entire argument is a bunch of Christian identity bullshit and the Christian identity is a white supremacist belief. So where you are at right now is in a place with a black man who is simply more studied about those like you than you expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
> 
> 1)  This is NOT a debate forum
> 
> 2)  Since it is obvious you have something to do with the ownership of this board, you are a liar and dishonest.  Others have been reprimanded for far less than you get to do here
> 
> 3)  Not a swinging here has claimed the things you have
> 
> 4)  IF your dumb ass had* READ* the opinion of Roger Taney in the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford, he most assuredly did say that the 14th Amendment was specific to the white race.  If his majority opinion wasn't 22 pages long, I'd post the whole damn thing
> 
> 5)  I don't care who agrees with the facts;  you are a *LIAR*.  I've posted the laws and the cases more than 100 times since I've run across you.  I don't care if a black man agrees with me or not.  The facts do not have an agenda.  IF blacks want to live in a delusional world of believing that the 14th Amendment made them equal, that is their Right.
> 
> IF, OTOH, they see that the 14th Amendment took away Rights, made a false promise to you and you're here bitching 150 + years after the 14th Amendment was passed, something is wrong.  Were the white supremacists of old correct?  Are you lacking in the IQ department?
> 
> IF the law was legally adopted, you made the case of the racists back in the 1970s - 1990s.  You would be biologically inferior to the whites because making you legally equal hasn't shut your babbling idiocy down.  Now, do I think all blacks agree with you?  When judges, legal researchers, historians, elected leaders, and civic leaders agree with me, your criticisms don't carry a Hell of a lot of weight.  Fact is, I ran across a group of about ten black kids under 25 that DID study this and were quite convinced that the 14th Amendment added to their slavery.,
> 
> Now, you're little debate where you get to be the moderator and judge is bullshit. AND YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED!!!!!  You are probably a white racist because you know more about than I do and I worked around the cream of the crop for a couple of years.  You are a fake and a phony.  Not all black people buy IM2's lies and bullshit:
> 
> Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement | Equality and the 14th Amendment | Constitution USA  | PBS
> 
> Can anybody here give me a link wherein these groups this half wit is yapping about has white supremacists talking about the fact *unalienable* Rights were nullified by the 14th Amendment?  Just because you cannot try the constitutionality of the 14th amendment in a kangaroo court does not mean that the facts are not facts:
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 
> Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really citing Dred Scot as precedent?? The one decision that is commonly held to be the single worst decision the SCOTUS made? Now, I rank Citizen's United right up there as well--but really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts of history cannot be changed regardless of how unpopular.  AND if that decision were not the law, there would have been little pretext that the people would have supported to *illegally ratify* the 14th Amendment with... REALLY.
Click to expand...

The facts of history can and often are changed..these days.

The 14th was a cutting of the Gordian Knot--an arbitrary drawing of the line. If you are born here...you are a citizen. In large part..as I'm sure you know--it was a stinging defeat for the Reconstruction South. I guess you're still fighting, eh?

I'm ambivalent about it now...not really the need--but..since I find your argument about 'white genocide' to be ludicrous--I'm not losing any sleep over it.


----------



## Bezukhov

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look in a mirror, you know what you are. As for loony tune? You're so stupid you thought asphalt was rectum trouble; Peter Pan was something you put under the bed at night; you wear a hat to the toilet so you know which end to wipe. BTW, how is it every day you get to hurl another insult at me and make presuppositions with no basis in fact?
> 
> You are a racist, black supremacist that has never done shit with his life except blame white people because you're an absolute failure at life. If we took all the stupid people like you, place them in a room and turned their brains into dynamite, you couldn't get enough charge to blow one's nose.
> 
> If you hate this country so damn bad, why not pack your bags and find some place more to your liking? You like talking shit and pecking on your keyboard because the last time you did something that stupid, you were a teen and some Bubba kicked your ass. You are not intimidating anyone with your blathering insults, so screw you. Look in the mirror and you'll see the greatest example the world's worst failure. You are the reason white supremacists exist. The day after you and Al Sharpton croak, the white supremacists will go out of business. Nobody will be bitching about them
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
Click to expand...

So what's next on your agenda? Trying to convince us that Jesus only wants white people in Amurica?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't feel threatened by him.  I told him all he has to do is say name the time and the place and we can hold a public face to face and allow the people to decide whether or not he is competent OR the blowhard we know he really is.
> 
> I knew a lot of shady people in the day.  I was on Hosea Williams tv show and once he took up my challenge, his show was cancelled at the end of the season.  Jesse Jackson was a regular political sparring adversary.  When a person has several decades of working in law and politics, they run across a lot of interesting characters.  Of all the people who best represented their respective sides, Ralph David Abernathy was the man the left should revere and Ron Paul was the closest to a constitutionalist that has lived during my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are debating right now.  You don't have to be on TV to debate.
> 
> Now I don't know who the hell you think you are but you have said that America was intended to be for whites only and that the 14th amendment, which makes blacks citizens was not legally ratified. You certainly don't think a black person with a sound mind is going to agree with that do you.
> 
> You don't have any facts to support your madness. The preamble does not say all white men are created equal, blacks had been here since 1619, the native Americans had been here 12,000 years, so this was not the white mans country. And as for my supposed racism, accusing blacks of hate just because we reject your white ethnostate agenda is the main tool white supremacists use.
> 
> So if you are not a white supremacist, you sure associate with them. And if you're not a white supremacist you have got to explain how your got that belief of America was only meant for whites. The bible doesn't justify the takeover, so this is not or never was New Jerusalem. Whites could not be the jews mentioned in the bible because the end as written comes in the middle east, not Europe.
> 
> The 14th amendment is a legally ratified amendment no matter what you say. Your entire argument is a bunch of Christian identity bullshit and the Christian identity is a white supremacist belief. So where you are at right now is in a place with a black man who is simply more studied about those like you than you expected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are a complete and utter idiot.
> 
> 1)  This is NOT a debate forum
> 
> 2)  Since it is obvious you have something to do with the ownership of this board, you are a liar and dishonest.  Others have been reprimanded for far less than you get to do here
> 
> 3)  Not a swinging here has claimed the things you have
> 
> 4)  IF your dumb ass had* READ* the opinion of Roger Taney in the majority opinion of Dred Scott v. Sanford, he most assuredly did say that the 14th Amendment was specific to the white race.  If his majority opinion wasn't 22 pages long, I'd post the whole damn thing
> 
> 5)  I don't care who agrees with the facts;  you are a *LIAR*.  I've posted the laws and the cases more than 100 times since I've run across you.  I don't care if a black man agrees with me or not.  The facts do not have an agenda.  IF blacks want to live in a delusional world of believing that the 14th Amendment made them equal, that is their Right.
> 
> IF, OTOH, they see that the 14th Amendment took away Rights, made a false promise to you and you're here bitching 150 + years after the 14th Amendment was passed, something is wrong.  Were the white supremacists of old correct?  Are you lacking in the IQ department?
> 
> IF the law was legally adopted, you made the case of the racists back in the 1970s - 1990s.  You would be biologically inferior to the whites because making you legally equal hasn't shut your babbling idiocy down.  Now, do I think all blacks agree with you?  When judges, legal researchers, historians, elected leaders, and civic leaders agree with me, your criticisms don't carry a Hell of a lot of weight.  Fact is, I ran across a group of about ten black kids under 25 that DID study this and were quite convinced that the 14th Amendment added to their slavery.,
> 
> Now, you're little debate where you get to be the moderator and judge is bullshit. AND YOU LIE ABOUT WHAT EVIDENCE WAS PROVIDED!!!!!  You are probably a white racist because you know more about than I do and I worked around the cream of the crop for a couple of years.  You are a fake and a phony.  Not all black people buy IM2's lies and bullshit:
> 
> Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement | Equality and the 14th Amendment | Constitution USA  | PBS
> 
> Can anybody here give me a link wherein these groups this half wit is yapping about has white supremacists talking about the fact *unalienable* Rights were nullified by the 14th Amendment?  Just because you cannot try the constitutionality of the 14th amendment in a kangaroo court does not mean that the facts are not facts:
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 
> Civil Liberties and Civil Rights [ushistory.org]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're really citing Dred Scot as precedent?? The one decision that is commonly held to be the single worst decision the SCOTUS made? Now, I rank Citizen's United right up there as well--but really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The facts of history cannot be changed regardless of how unpopular.  AND if that decision were not the law, there would have been little pretext that the people would have supported to *illegally ratify* the 14th Amendment with... REALLY.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts of history can and often are changed..these days.
> 
> The 14th was a cutting of the Gordian Knot--an arbitrary drawing of the line. If you are born here...you are a citizen. In large part..as I'm sure you know--it was a stinging defeat for the Reconstruction South. I guess you're still fighting, eh?
> 
> I'm ambivalent about it now...not really the need--but..since I find your argument about 'white genocide' to be ludicrous--I'm not losing any sleep over it.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant.  You cannot change history.  By your argument, George Washington could be a woman, Jefferson a transvetite, and Nathan Hale a Jewish Russian.  No sir, you cannot change history.  It's already happened.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Bezukhov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's next on your agenda? Trying to convince us that Jesus only wants white people in Amurica?
Click to expand...


Actually, because I've advocated for Liberty, I made the same, exact OPPOSITE argument and the right went after me with the fervor black supremacists have.  You guys are the two sides of the same coin.


----------



## protectionist

Bezukhov said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, what did IM2 say to get under your skin like that?  Must of struck a nerve.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's next on your agenda? Trying to convince us that Jesus only wants white people in Amurica?
Click to expand...

 Going to bully people into agreeing with you, by using Jesus as a weapon, huh ?

We may have sunk to a new low around here, with the weaponization of Jesus.

And I would bet Jesus was cool with democracy.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Florida unemployment:*
> All:3.3%
> *White:2.5%*
> *Black:6.1%*
> Hispanic:3.4%
> Asian:2.2%
> 
> *Source:*_ EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data and Current Population Survey (CPS) data_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the village idiot will dismiss these facts as "liberal lies"....Watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because blacks get AA, that doesn't mean they're going to get up out of bed before noon, and go out to get a job.  Lots of those blacks are unemployed because they choose to be.  Easier to just collect a welfare check.  Right ,NVM ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know that they choose to be unemployed?
> 
> You need to make up your mind. grandma.
> On one hand, you claim that "blacks are doing better than whites, and get better jobs".
> 
> Now that you were presented with facts regarding unemployment, you are stating that the unemployed blacks are unemployed by choice"
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> You need to call for one of the staff at the VA mental ward and request a medication check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
> Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
> Gee, that was tough, huh ?
> Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.
Click to expand...


I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.

Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".

How do you know that?

Answer the question or STFU.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..
> 
> They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
Click to expand...

You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And without any job, your salary is not higher than the guy who rounds up shopping carts.
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to "him/it", literally "hundreds of millions' of white people have been victimized by AA..
> 
> They must administer some drugs like none ever heard of at the VA mental ward in Florida.
> 
> LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
Click to expand...


1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.

2. And I have never benefitted from AA.

3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.


However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.


----------



## katsteve2012

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
Click to expand...


I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Florida unemployment:*
> All:3.3%
> *White:2.5%*
> *Black:6.1%*
> Hispanic:3.4%
> Asian:2.2%
> 
> *Source:*_ EPI analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics Local Area Unemployment Statistics (LAUS) data and Current Population Survey (CPS) data_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the village idiot will dismiss these facts as "liberal lies"....Watch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just because blacks get AA, that doesn't mean they're going to get up out of bed before noon, and go out to get a job.  Lots of those blacks are unemployed because they choose to be.  Easier to just collect a welfare check.  Right ,NVM ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know that they choose to be unemployed?
> 
> You need to make up your mind. grandma.
> On one hand, you claim that "blacks are doing better than whites, and get better jobs".
> 
> Now that you were presented with facts regarding unemployment, you are stating that the unemployed blacks are unemployed by choice"
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> You need to call for one of the staff at the VA mental ward and request a medication check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
> Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
> Gee, that was tough, huh ?
> Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.
> 
> Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Answer the question or STFU.
Click to expand...

I don't know it fake news "reports"
  I know it same way everybody knows it.
  From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
Click to expand...

Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha

SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> No shit?  A person with a job has a higher salary than a person without a job?  Pure genius.
> 
> And why do you have to look down on the guy rounding up the shopping carts?  All the ones I've encountered are way nicer than you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe I should have moved to Florida in my weed smoking days. What is about whites in Florida? First there was Morrison, now this guy. Maybe they need to quit eating alligator.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
Click to expand...

They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?

BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.

And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.

Know more, judge less.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the village idiot will dismiss these facts as "liberal lies"....Watch.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because blacks get AA, that doesn't mean they're going to get up out of bed before noon, and go out to get a job.  Lots of those blacks are unemployed because they choose to be.  Easier to just collect a welfare check.  Right ,NVM ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how would you know that they choose to be unemployed?
> 
> You need to make up your mind. grandma.
> On one hand, you claim that "blacks are doing better than whites, and get better jobs".
> 
> Now that you were presented with facts regarding unemployment, you are stating that the unemployed blacks are unemployed by choice"
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> You need to call for one of the staff at the VA mental ward and request a medication check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
> Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
> Gee, that was tough, huh ?
> Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.
> 
> Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Answer the question or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know it fake news "reports"
> I know it same way everybody knows it.
> From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?
Click to expand...


Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.

So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?

Here is a fact for you, loony tune.

Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.

Why?

Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?


Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.

You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago. 

Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".
Click to expand...

Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.

And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.
> 
> You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago.
> 
> Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.
Click to expand...

I said I had certifications in MY field, not hers, you idiot.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.
> 
> You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago.
> 
> Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.
Click to expand...

And if you don't think I am skilled in mechanical inspection or teaching guitar, violin, and mandolin, I could give you a free lesson right here, right now.

And if I was "broke", I wouldn't own 4 stringed instruments worth about $2,000, but I do.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.
> 
> You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago.
> 
> Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you don't think I am skilled in mechanical inspection or teaching guitar, violin, and mandolin, I could give you a free lesson right here, right now.
> 
> And if I was "broke", I wouldn't own 4 stringed instruments worth about $2,000, but I do.
Click to expand...





Thats all? I have a Gibson ES335 that alone is worth over 3500.00. As well as a U.S. made 1962 Seafoam Green Fender Strat that I've been offered 2300.00 for,

I won't even mention the two acoustic guitars that I also own.


You must own some chezp Asian made knockoffs.

What are your amplifiers and effects?


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with the facts. The facts show that America was built upon a foundation of white supremacy. It is that white supremacy you want to return to. Yet you start crying because you get called a white supremacist. The first naturalization laws excluded people who were already here. The fact that it was racist is undisputed and that's why it's no longer the law.
> 
> Your opposition to the 14th amendment is based on race but you try using the claim that it nullified the bill of rights. First off you ignore the fact that the unalienable rights everyone was supposed to have naturally, blacks did not have by written law. Your ignorance in this regard is the fact you used the 1790 Naturalization Act, which stripped unalienable rights from everyone who was not white. In all of your arguments you ignore anyone not white. The 14th amendment did not nullify the Bill of Rights and digging up a right wing legal interpretation doesn't change that.
> 
> You said those rights were given by God. That means they cannot be taken away.  I'm not talking about gun rights, I am talking about human rights. Limiting to right to use a gun is not the same as basic human freedom. You see after the preamble was written, the so called founders created this document called the constitution that defined our rights. The preamble is not the supreme law of the land.
> 
> Now you call me a racist, yet because I know what racism is, I know I haven't said anything racist. You have made a claim that is racist anywhere you go.  There is nothing wrong with what I have said. If you found an all black forum and decided to "educate" them, you would get banned. You can only say what you do here. Or on Jerry Springer.
> 
> This is not about you kissing anyone's ass. It is about you making a racist claim that America belongs only to whites and that the 14th amendment is illegal because it hasn't been legally ratified so everybody here who is not white are not legal citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *PART 1 OF THIS RESPONSE*
> 
> 1)  The white people took this land via treaties and the Right of Conquest
> 
> 2)  Yep.  the Constitution did exclude blacks, but that is not the real reason for the 14th Amendment.  It's a bit more complicated than that
> 
> 3)  As you are criticizing me, you're probably peering through your glasses wherein the glass was made in Japan (which claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.)  You're probably sitting on a chair made in one of the Koreas that are 98 + percent racially homogeneous while pecking lies on a keyboard, hooked to a computer made in China (which is well in excess of 90 percent Han Chinese.)
> 
> Those countries and many others are homogeneous, but they are not white.  So, you think nothing of their "_supremacy_."  You don't bitch about the slavers who brought blacks to America NOR your black brethren that rounded up them up and sold them to the slavers.  Your hatred is reserved for the whites because you are not a damn bit better than anyone else.  *YOU ARE A BLACK SUPREMACIST
> *
> 4) You are wrong about* unalienable* Rights.  Naturalization is citizenship and *citizenship is a privilege*, NOT a Right.  Even the black people understand this concept.  THAT is why they supported the Democrats (via Ted Kennedy's lobbying efforts) when they force fed us the immigration laws that put in arbitrary numbers of people who could come to the United States.  Emmanuel Celler of the Hart - Cellar Act was the *Democrat* that introduced that legislation and Philip Hart was the *Democrat* Senator that helped him promote it.  NOW, you have a real problem IM2:
> 
> ALL of Trump's supporters are advocating for the strict enforcement of the immigration laws that the Democrats put into place.  The Democrats *real* agenda was to flood America with non-whites and subtly commit genocide on the installment plan.  Whites are only 1 in 13 of the world's population.  By allowing people to come from all other nations equally, your side advocated a displacement of the founders / framers of the country and Constitution.  They had to be eliminated, not protected while you sought this elusive "_equality_."
> 
> Oh I'm going to do this in two parts and hope that someone reads it other than you
Click to expand...


No, I don't want whites lined up and mowed down with machine guns. I just want whites like you to end your racism. Once again you posted a load of bullshit. Whites came here. Native Americans were already here. Native Americans allowed whites to live here. That's what those treaties did. They did not give this country to whites. Unalienable rights means if you live in a place you are a citizen. Whites refused to allow people who were not white already living here to be citizens. Hence they tried taking unalienable rights.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sick of him.  He has thus far accused me of being a white supremacist; he accused me of "_fucking_" his mother; he's called me names that would have gotten any other poster banned.  I don't have much respect for gutless cowards that hide behind the Internet and trying to bully people.
> 
> A white supremacist would be IM2 with white skin IMO.  I know Don Black (the guy who started Stormfront) and David Duke and I was a law clerk under Jimmy Venable (the last living klansman when it was rebirthed atop Stone Mountain way back in the 1920s (IIRC.)  NONE of those guys were near the caliber of hatemonger IM2 is.  I met J.B. Stoner once as a teen when he was stumping for governor of Georgia.  He'd be the only thing close to IM2 in terms of hate.  IM2 wants all whites line up and mowed down with machine guns.
> 
> Personally, I've never heard any white racists go to the extremes IM2 does and maybe they exist, but the old guard aforementioned aren't in IM2's class when it comes to hate mongering and bigotry.
> 
> IM2 is beyond having any civil conversation with.  If his intent is to convert people into white racists, it's about the only thing he's good at.  Maybe he's a neo - nazi pretending to be black because he's sure as Hell doing a better recruitment job than the current crop of white racist leaders - because I can't even tell you their names.
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's next on your agenda? Trying to convince us that Jesus only wants white people in Amurica?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, because I've advocated for Liberty, I made the same, exact OPPOSITE argument and the right went after me with the fervor black supremacists have.  You guys are the two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...


There are no black supremacists here.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.
> 
> You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago.
> 
> Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I had certifications in MY field, not hers, you idiot.
Click to expand...

She is also in the tech fiel . Bozo.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
Click to expand...


Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.
> 
> You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago.
> 
> Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I had certifications in MY field, not hers, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is also in the tech fiel . Bozo.
Click to expand...


He would be wise to leave Newsvine alone. She's been fairly even tempered in her response to the madness presented here, but she is more than capable of breaking noprotection off something proper. He doesn't want to push this sister to that point. I'm going to get my popcorn ready because the last thing a racist white man should want to do is piss off a sister.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Likely far more intelligent as well. I think Deflectionist is a former "stoner" whose brain has turned to mush from doing too many psychedelic drugs.
> 
> In one of his posts here he mentioned mescalin and LSD.
> Brother, you would not like Florida. I used to travel there frequently before retiring, and always dreaded going.  The humidity is oppresive....but my wife sure liked shopping in Palm Beach
> 
> Truthfully I did try alligator a few times while there. It wasn't that bad, but I drew the line at eating Iguana....lol
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
Click to expand...

Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.

I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?

*Veterans Pension*
*Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.

*Eligibility*
[snipped]

In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:

Age 65 or older, *OR*
Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
Receiving Supplemental Security Income
Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.

Here
*Income and Net Worth Limitations*
*Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.

*Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
​


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
Click to expand...


And there is more:
the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.

Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.

In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
Click to expand...

Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.

In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.

Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
Click to expand...

California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.

Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.

I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You couldn't make it here in Florida.  This is a red state.  Black guy ran for governor, and got beat by the Republican . AA is disappearing here too.  Not your cup of tea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
Click to expand...

I don't need information about VA pensions.  The VA declared me eligible and I've been receiving it for 8 years now.  That's good enough for me

As for Social Security, I've been getting that for 10 years.  The one you get just for being old.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.
> 
> You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago.
> 
> Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said I had certifications in MY field, not hers, you idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is also in the tech fiel . Bozo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He would be wise to leave Newsvine alone. She's been fairly even tempered in her response to the madness presented here, but she is more than capable of breaking noprotection off something proper. He doesn't want to push this sister to that point. I'm going to get my popcorn ready because the last thing a racist white man should want to do is piss off a sister.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about now, ?..you screwball.

And if any of you are pissed off, that's your problem.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.
Click to expand...

So you say I don't have any video of me playing music in USMB ?

Would you like a free violin lesson, right now ?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
Click to expand...


Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations. 

Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.

As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet


 Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> 
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say I don't have any video of me playing music in USMB ?
> 
> Would you like a free violin lesson, right now ?
Click to expand...


I started out playing the violin at age 7 and preferred the guitar. So no thank you.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because blacks get AA, that doesn't mean they're going to get up out of bed before noon, and go out to get a job.  Lots of those blacks are unemployed because they choose to be.  Easier to just collect a welfare check.  Right ,NVM ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you know that they choose to be unemployed?
> 
> You need to make up your mind. grandma.
> On one hand, you claim that "blacks are doing better than whites, and get better jobs".
> 
> Now that you were presented with facts regarding unemployment, you are stating that the unemployed blacks are unemployed by choice"
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> You need to call for one of the staff at the VA mental ward and request a medication check.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
> Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
> Gee, that was tough, huh ?
> Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.
> 
> Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Answer the question or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know it fake news "reports"
> I know it same way everybody knows it.
> From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.
> 
> So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?
> 
> Here is a fact for you, loony tune.
> 
> Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?
> 
> 
> Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.
Click to expand...

Ha ha ha
  You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?

And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?

And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say I don't have any video of me playing music in USMB ?
> 
> Would you like a free violin lesson, right now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started out playing the violin at age 7 and preferred the guitar. So no thank you.
Click to expand...

Anybody who plays the violin would know how many scales of G it has. And covering how many octaves.  This is elementary.

Well, mister violin player.  Can you tell us ?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no problem with the facts. The facts show that America was built upon a foundation of white supremacy. It is that white supremacy you want to return to. Yet you start crying because you get called a white supremacist. The first naturalization laws excluded people who were already here. The fact that it was racist is undisputed and that's why it's no longer the law.
> 
> Your opposition to the 14th amendment is based on race but you try using the claim that it nullified the bill of rights. First off you ignore the fact that the unalienable rights everyone was supposed to have naturally, blacks did not have by written law. Your ignorance in this regard is the fact you used the 1790 Naturalization Act, which stripped unalienable rights from everyone who was not white. In all of your arguments you ignore anyone not white. The 14th amendment did not nullify the Bill of Rights and digging up a right wing legal interpretation doesn't change that.
> 
> You said those rights were given by God. That means they cannot be taken away.  I'm not talking about gun rights, I am talking about human rights. Limiting to right to use a gun is not the same as basic human freedom. You see after the preamble was written, the so called founders created this document called the constitution that defined our rights. The preamble is not the supreme law of the land.
> 
> Now you call me a racist, yet because I know what racism is, I know I haven't said anything racist. You have made a claim that is racist anywhere you go.  There is nothing wrong with what I have said. If you found an all black forum and decided to "educate" them, you would get banned. You can only say what you do here. Or on Jerry Springer.
> 
> This is not about you kissing anyone's ass. It is about you making a racist claim that America belongs only to whites and that the 14th amendment is illegal because it hasn't been legally ratified so everybody here who is not white are not legal citizens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *PART 1 OF THIS RESPONSE*
> 
> 1)  The white people took this land via treaties and the Right of Conquest
> 
> 2)  Yep.  the Constitution did exclude blacks, but that is not the real reason for the 14th Amendment.  It's a bit more complicated than that
> 
> 3)  As you are criticizing me, you're probably peering through your glasses wherein the glass was made in Japan (which claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.)  You're probably sitting on a chair made in one of the Koreas that are 98 + percent racially homogeneous while pecking lies on a keyboard, hooked to a computer made in China (which is well in excess of 90 percent Han Chinese.)
> 
> Those countries and many others are homogeneous, but they are not white.  So, you think nothing of their "_supremacy_."  You don't bitch about the slavers who brought blacks to America NOR your black brethren that rounded up them up and sold them to the slavers.  Your hatred is reserved for the whites because you are not a damn bit better than anyone else.  *YOU ARE A BLACK SUPREMACIST
> *
> 4) You are wrong about* unalienable* Rights.  Naturalization is citizenship and *citizenship is a privilege*, NOT a Right.  Even the black people understand this concept.  THAT is why they supported the Democrats (via Ted Kennedy's lobbying efforts) when they force fed us the immigration laws that put in arbitrary numbers of people who could come to the United States.  Emmanuel Celler of the Hart - Cellar Act was the *Democrat* that introduced that legislation and Philip Hart was the *Democrat* Senator that helped him promote it.  NOW, you have a real problem IM2:
> 
> ALL of Trump's supporters are advocating for the strict enforcement of the immigration laws that the Democrats put into place.  The Democrats *real* agenda was to flood America with non-whites and subtly commit genocide on the installment plan.  Whites are only 1 in 13 of the world's population.  By allowing people to come from all other nations equally, your side advocated a displacement of the founders / framers of the country and Constitution.  They had to be eliminated, not protected while you sought this elusive "_equality_."
> 
> Oh I'm going to do this in two parts and hope that someone reads it other than you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't want whites lined up and mowed down with machine guns. I just want whites like you to end your racism. Once again you posted a load of bullshit. Whites came here. Native Americans were already here. Native Americans allowed whites to live here. That's what those treaties did. They did not give this country to whites. Unalienable rights means if you live in a place you are a citizen. Whites refused to allow people who were not white already living here to be citizens. Hence they tried taking unalienable rights.
Click to expand...


Do you ever check below your posts to see how full of bullshit most people think you are?  Have you ever seen the likes people get for telling you like it is?

You hate whites and the race forums are about the only place you have an opinion.  Not that you understand the law, I'm going to quote a couple of this country's FIRST court rulings defining what an *unalienable *Right is:

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)  - {1855}


“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

“_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted.    BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)_

Note that these are not opinions, but actual COURT RULINGS.  They are the bottom line.  There are only three things that will trump a court ruling: a ruling by a higher court or a holding by the United States Supreme Court, or an Amendment to the Constitution.  All the layman dictionaries, who said what, and what statute says what is irrelevant.  The courts have the last say and my last holding is from the United States Supreme Court.

The word *unalienable *means that the Right cannot be aliened.  The 14th Amendment says that your rights cannot be taken except by due process.  It's two different meanings whether you like it or not; agree or not.  The 14th Amendment shyly said they were taking your Rights and subjecting them to their standard of due process.  Again, I'm going to prove this.  Here is a holding by the United States Supreme Court:

“_The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States._

_..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_.   United States v. Cruikshank  92 US 542 (1875)

The reason that the Second Amendment *RIGHT *does not depend upon the Constitution is due to the simple fact that it is an *unalienable* Right.  It is an extension of that God given Right to Life mentioned in the Declaration of Independence and you were born with it.  Here is a little snippet from Lexisnexus (lawyers use it all the time) and it states:

"_Using the Heller framework, the court upheld the requirement of mere registration because it was longstanding and hence, presumptively lawful, and the presumption stood unrebutted. *In Heller the Supreme Court of the United States explained the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing" individual right *to keep and bear arms, which was important to Americans not only to maintain the militia._.."

Heller v. District of Columbia | Case Brief for Law School | LexisNexis

Read the whole decision:

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Here is another observation by a think tank group on the Heller decision:

"_Since the 1890s, the Supreme Court has been “selectively incorporating” the Bill of Rights piecemeal into the 14th Amendment via that amendment’s Due Process Clause_."

The Second Amendment and the States

Your *unalienable* Rights are codified into the Bill of Rights.  The courts are trying to bring your *unalienable* Rights under the 14th Amendment and the 14th Amendment is GOVERNMENT created.  AND, the 14th Amendment says government can take away your Rights via due process.  That is the antithesis of a God given Right.  You are wrong IM2 and anybody can check it out.  My personal objection to the 14th Amendment does not have shit to do with my personal views on race. 

Now, if you still want to call me a white supremacist, I am not offended.  I am offended that you think you're in my league on understanding constitutional law.  I spent a few years in studying law in an accredited school.  Now, everybody has the facts. 






*
*


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's next on your agenda? Trying to convince us that Jesus only wants white people in Amurica?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, because I've advocated for Liberty, I made the same, exact OPPOSITE argument and the right went after me with the fervor black supremacists have.  You guys are the two sides of the same coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no black supremacists here.
Click to expand...


The ONLY way that is true is if you are a figment of our imagination.  You are the poster boy for black supremacy.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say I don't have any video of me playing music in USMB ?
> 
> Would you like a free violin lesson, right now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started out playing the violin at age 7 and preferred the guitar. So no thank you.
Click to expand...

Anybody who plays the guitar would know what the tonic, subdominant, and dominants are for the key of D.  And for the key of A.  
You know them ?

How about the relative minor chord for D ? Or for C ? Got any clue ?


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROTFLMFAO!
> 
> You sure know a lot of shady people!
> 
> So IM2 don't like most whites....this  matters to you?  I gotta say...I'm not threatened by him..nor do I think he intends me to be....You, on the other hand, feel threatened..and well you should be!
> 
> Your responses are quite telling..for those that want to look..I wonder if you really mean what you communicate to others..as to who you are..ethically?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's next on your agenda? Trying to convince us that Jesus only wants white people in Amurica?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, because I've advocated for Liberty, I made the same, exact OPPOSITE argument and the right went after me with the fervor black supremacists have.  You guys are the two sides of the same coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no black supremacists here.
Click to expand...

All except for NVM, katsteve, and you. 

Now  and admit it


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bezukhov said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't dislike most whites, I just don't like racist whites. And when a person says America was meant to be only for whites and the 14th amendment is illegal then he should not get pissy when he's called a white supremacist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The history of this country don't change because you don't like the facts.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the reality is, America was founded for whites.  Here is the *FIRST* Naturalization law written only months after the ratification of the United States Constitution:
> 
> "_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien *being a free white person*, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least..."_
> 
> Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795
> 
> Where in the HELL is there any _"racism_" on my part?  What I stated as FACT is both accurate and honest.  Where is there any racism in an honest and accurate portrayal of the facts?  Explain to us how a rendering of the facts is racist.  IM2 is full of shit and you know it.
> 
> Second point: IM 2 knows damn well, my objections to the 14th Amendment are *NOT* predicated on race.  My objections to the 14th Amendment are predicated on the fact that the 14th Amendment ultimately *nullified* the Bill of Rights.  AND that is *not* my opinion.  I can show you how, when applied in the context of gun Rights, the courts gradually eliminated gun Rights and ended up (under a _conservative _Court I might add), saying that the government grants you your "_rights_."  And that, sir, is the antithesis of an *unalienable* Right.  There is not a damn thing racist about it.
> 
> I don't like whataboutism; however, any person that is not black cannot make the racist statements you do in any place in America.  There was a Chinese girl on tv a couple of days ago, accused of racism and stripped of her beauty pageant title and kicked out of her sorority for a lot less IM2 gets away with here.  Just because I don't kiss his ass does not make me a racist.  IM2 is the lowest form of life on earth.
> 
> I've gotten pissy because some of us are more equal than others.  What IM2 says would get any other race of person banned and removed from this society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what's next on your agenda? Trying to convince us that Jesus only wants white people in Amurica?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, because I've advocated for Liberty, I made the same, exact OPPOSITE argument and the right went after me with the fervor black supremacists have.  You guys are the two sides of the same coin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no black supremacists here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All except for NVM, katsteve, and you.
> 
> Now  and admit it
Click to expand...


Projecting again? It must disturb you greatly yo made to look foolish everyday.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".
> 
> 
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say I don't have any video of me playing music in USMB ?
> 
> Would you like a free violin lesson, right now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started out playing the violin at age 7 and preferred the guitar. So no thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody who plays the guitar would know what the tonic, subdominant, and dominants are for the key of D.  And for the key of A.
> You know them ?
> 
> How about the relative minor chord for D ? Or for C ? Got any clue ?
Click to expand...


1st and last, 4th and fifth.....tag your it. 

Fill in the rest as it relates to major and minor triads.


----------



## katsteve2012

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say I don't have any video of me playing music in USMB ?
> 
> Would you like a free violin lesson, right now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started out playing the violin at age 7 and preferred the guitar. So no thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody who plays the guitar would know what the tonic, subdominant, and dominants are for the key of D.  And for the key of A.
> You know them ?
> 
> How about the relative minor chord for D ? Or for C ? Got any clue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1st and last, 4th and fifth.....tag your it.
> 
> Fill in the rest as it relates to major and minor triads.
Click to expand...


And while you're at at. What are these 4 string instruments that you own that total the paltry value of 2000.00


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you know that they choose to be unemployed?
> 
> You need to make up your mind. grandma.
> On one hand, you claim that "blacks are doing better than whites, and get better jobs".
> 
> Now that you were presented with facts regarding unemployment, you are stating that the unemployed blacks are unemployed by choice"
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> You need to call for one of the staff at the VA mental ward and request a medication check.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
> Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
> Gee, that was tough, huh ?
> Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.
> 
> Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Answer the question or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know it fake news "reports"
> I know it same way everybody knows it.
> From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.
> 
> So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?
> 
> Here is a fact for you, loony tune.
> 
> Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?
> 
> 
> Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ha
> You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?
> 
> And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?
> 
> And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.
Click to expand...


 My primary  home and two rental homes are paid for.....you could not afford to live in the garage of any one of them. As far as wildfires, not a single one near my neighborhood in decades.

People contract AIDS in different ways. One of them is intravenous drug use with dirty needles...something you likely are very familiar with.

Earthquakes? There is insurance available to cover property damage, and there has not been a major one since the 90's in Northridge.

And no I don't listen to CNN, I get my news from satellite radio...as far as the rest if your jealous rage for being a lifelong renter, if you had worked in a better paying career, you would have been able to buy your own home,

As far as San Francisco goes, you would be picking up aluminum cans and sleeping in Union Square with pigeons and stray animals if you lived there...it is no place for broke, mentally impaired outcasts like you.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think playing the guitar on a street corner with a tin cup qualifies for "teaching music lessons".
> 
> 
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say I don't have any video of me playing music in USMB ?
> 
> Would you like a free violin lesson, right now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started out playing the violin at age 7 and preferred the guitar. So no thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody who plays the violin would know how many scales of G it has. And covering how many octaves.  This is elementary.
> 
> Well, mister violin player.  Can you tell us ?
Click to expand...


I said that I played the violin for one year, fool from the age of 7 until 8, then I picked up the guitar. Can"t you read?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
Click to expand...

This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.

1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?

2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.

3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.

4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
  That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.

5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.

San Jose, CA 10-Day Weather Forecast - The Weather Channel | Weather.com

Tampa, FL 10-Day Weather Forecast - The Weather Channel | Weather.com

Today:

61 - 76 in Tampa.
46 - 75 in San Jose, CA

Weekly highs:

69 - 77 in Tampa
61 - 67 in San Jose

And apparently you are unaware that high humidity here in Florida is only a summer thing.  Fall, winter, and spring have low humidity, highs in the 70s.  Eat your heart out poor soul Californian.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
Click to expand...


1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago. 

*Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*

2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years 

Where are you getting these lies from?

3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.

In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.

I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.

4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.

You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
Click to expand...

You're not ready to answer my last post.  I'm still posting on it, dummy.

Look at the weather forecast links I posted showing how wrong and stupid you are.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not ready to answer my last post.  I'm still posting on it, dummy.
> 
> Look at the weather forecast links I posted showing how wrong and stupid you are.
Click to expand...


I answered your last post, and you are delusional, and flat out crazy.

The average annual humidity in Florida is higher than any state in America. Anywhere between 61% up to 83%.

Look it up and prove that I'm wrong.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not ready to answer my last post.  I'm still posting on it, dummy.
> 
> Look at the weather forecast links I posted showing how wrong and stupid you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your last post, and you are delusional, and flat out crazy.
> 
> The average annual humidity in Florida is higher than any state in America. Anywhere between 61% up to 83%.
> 
> Look it up and prove that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

You didn't read what I just wrote.
  Go back and finish reading my previous post - including the 2 links.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
Click to expand...

That post is known as Display of IGNORANCE.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not ready to answer my last post.  I'm still posting on it, dummy.
> 
> Look at the weather forecast links I posted showing how wrong and stupid you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your last post, and you are delusional, and flat out crazy.
> 
> The average annual humidity in Florida is higher than any state in America. Anywhere between 61% up to 83%.
> 
> Look it up and prove that I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read what I just wrote.
> Go back and finish reading my previous post - including the 2 links.
Click to expand...


I read them. You do realize that southern California and northern California are nearly 500 miles apart., don't you?....or did you flunk geography?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That post is known as Display of IGNORANCE.
Click to expand...


Its known as adressing someone crazy as what they are......CRAZY.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
Click to expand...

WHERE in California are you ?  You're not going to tell me anything about climate in the San Francisco Bay area.  I lived in 3 counties of it, for 12 wasted years.

1.  Summer - DRY like desert.  Zero rain and not 1 cloud for 5 months.  Fire constant.

2.  Winter - WET drizzly rains constantly.  Dry days rare.  Mudslides, floods, washed out roads constant.

3.  Ocean & bay waters - never warmer than 55 degrees.  Could be 35. Horrible.

4.  Winds - Ferocious and freezing cold, due to the high temperature differential between the land and see.  Makes recreation unbearable.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not ready to answer my last post.  I'm still posting on it, dummy.
> 
> Look at the weather forecast links I posted showing how wrong and stupid you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your last post, and you are delusional, and flat out crazy.
> 
> The average annual humidity in Florida is higher than any state in America. Anywhere between 61% up to 83%.
> 
> Look it up and prove that I'm wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read what I just wrote.
> Go back and finish reading my previous post - including the 2 links.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read them. You do realize that southern California and northern California are nearly 500 miles apart., don't you?....or did you flunk geography?
Click to expand...

It was my major (in addition to economics).  I also taught both subjects in college - just like I taught you here now (if you read my honest posts).

I did read your dishonest ones, like temperature in the 70s.  Tampa yeah.  San Jose, no.


----------



## protectionist

Are you going to state WHERE in California you've been talking about, or is this supposed to be a secret ?

You need to read more.  Post less.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not ready to answer my last post.  I'm still posting on it, dummy.
> 
> Look at the weather forecast links I posted showing how wrong and stupid you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I answered your last post, and you are delusional, and flat out crazy.
> 
> The average annual humidity in Florida is higher than any state in America. Anywhere between 61% up to 83%.
> 
> Look it up and prove that I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

2 things wrong with that post - "average" and "annual"


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
Click to expand...

"forecast" WHERE ?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And there is more:
> the estimated *average Social Security retirement* benefit in 2020 is $1,503 a month. The *average* disability benefit is $1,258.)Dec 16, 2019. At full retirement age the MAXIMUM  benefit is 2861.00 per month.
> 
> Even though I am of age to start collecting now, I opted to wait, I  likely would only use it for recreational activities.
> 
> In California that pittance would barely pay my annual property taxes.
> 
> 
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHERE in California are you ?  You're not going to tell me anything about climate in the San Francisco Bay area.  I lived in 3 counties of it, for 12 wasted years.
> 
> 1.  Summer - DRY like desert.  Zero rain and not 1 cloud for 5 months.  Fire constant.
> 
> 2.  Winter - WET drizzly rains constantly.  Dry days rare.  Mudslides, floods, washed out roads constant.
> 
> 3.  Ocean & bay waters - never warmer than 55 degrees.  Could be 35. Horrible.
> 
> 4.  Ferocious and freezing cold, due to the high temperature differential between the land and see.  Makes recreation unbearable.
Click to expand...


I live in southern California. My parents lived in northern California for 40 years in St. Francis Woods.

While the weather is gloomier in the northern area of California, it was never "freezing" as you claim.

Cool year around unlike the southern area, but no snow  like the midwest or the south. A light jacket was all I ever needed there. 

In southern California, you can walk around nearly all year in shorts and tee shirts....which is what I wear nearly all of the time. 

I visit Pismo Beach on the coast at a time share that I have there, every year, and the weather is nearly perfect, and right by the ocean. 

As a whole, the weather is better in California than Florida. 

That is a fact that cannot be disputed.

Period.

Now, i am returning to the subject matter relating to this thread. You like where you live, and so do I. 

I am pleased that you are not a resident in my city, and you are obliged to feel the same.

End of discussion.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> California is the worst deal in America.  Astronomical housing costs all for the "benefits" of earthquakes, constant fires, floods, washed out roads, freezing cold winds and ocean water, and millions of illegal Mexicans draining away budgets and govt services.
> 
> Then there's the threat of loss of fresh water to the southern half of the state if the forebay shuts down if the delta levees collapse.  Half the state would have to evacuate for years.
> 
> I moved out of California 31 years ago.  There is no reason for anyone to live there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Earthquakes are infrequent, floods are practically non existent better choices in real estate, better recreational facilities and vacation destinations.
> 
> Far better weather. The humidity in Florida is unpleasant and right now it is cold there. I sat by my pool and read yesterday and it was 70 degrees.
> 
> As far as the cost of housing, more expensive yes, but I would rather pay more for better weather. My home is paid for, so I only pay property taxes, but if and when I do leave, I will get more money for my house than you have probably ever seen in your life.
> Illegal immigrants are invisible in my neighborhood except when they are looking for clean up jobs to make ends meet
> 
> 
> Plenty of good reasons to live here......if you can afford to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is one of the easiest posts to refute I've ever seen.
> 
> 1.  How does "infrequent" sound to the families of the dozens of people killed in the 1989 "World Series" earthquake ? And other earthquakes since then ?
> 
> 2.  Floods are VERY existent and commonly happen all winter, together with mudslides and washed out roads, due to the excessive rainfall, and denuded hillsides from the chronic summer fires.
> 
> 3.  Just as California's winters are too wet, the summers are too dry.  This causes constant wildfires all summer. It also caused temperature in versions which hold frequent smoke clouds in place over cities.
> In the Sam FrancisconBay area, we had smoke clouds that kept the sun hidden for 2 weeks.
> 
> 4.  "Better recreation facilities" ,?  If you like skiing maybe
> That's about all.  There's no such thing as a beach in California.  How can you have a beach where the water is too cold, the surf is too rough, and the water is dark ?  In Florida, the water is warm, clear, and has a very mild surf.
> 
> 5. The weather is one of the worst aspects of California, due to the precipitation extremes of summer and winter.  Right now, you are in the middle of your wet season, with drizzly rains practically every day.  Here, we have high temperatures in the low-mid 70s with very low humidity, and clear skies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where were you when Hurricane Irma touched down in Florida? That was just 3 years ago. The San Francisco earthquake in 1989 was 30 years ago.
> 
> *Hurricane Irma* in 2017 was blamed for 129 *deaths*, including 123 in *Florida*
> 
> 2. Floods are not common in California, you dunce. Just last year there were less than 5 days of rain, and none of those days were enough to produce any floods. In fact, we had a severe drought here that lasted over 2 years
> 
> Where are you getting these lies from?
> 
> 3. California's winters are not ""wet". They are typically dry. From November right up until this very day, we have had exactly 3 days  of sporadic rain. The weather is one of the BEST aspects of living in California. Look up average weather during the winter in California and educate your stupid self. I've lived here all of my life and what you stating with this made up horseshit is outrageous. It has barely drizzled during this entire month, you damn fool.
> 
> In fact, the forecast for the rest of this week and next are highs in the mid 70's. I spent yesterday sitting by my pool and the weather was nearly perfect.
> 
> I am totally convinced now that your imagination is where you get your facts from.
> 
> 4. Low humidity in Florida?! Maybe the humidity is low in your room at the VA mental ward, but I traveled to Orlando as well as Tampa, Palm Beach and Tallahassee, during varying months and the humidity was so bad, that I felt like a needed a shower after just getting out of one even in the early morning.
> 
> You are fucking crazy. Get some help, you nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHERE in California are you ?  You're not going to tell me anything about climate in the San Francisco Bay area.  I lived in 3 counties of it, for 12 wasted years.
> 
> 1.  Summer - DRY like desert.  Zero rain and not 1 cloud for 5 months.  Fire constant.
> 
> 2.  Winter - WET drizzly rains constantly.  Dry days rare.  Mudslides, floods, washed out roads constant.
> 
> 3.  Ocean & bay waters - never warmer than 55 degrees.  Could be 35. Horrible.
> 
> 4.  Ferocious and freezing cold, due to the high temperature differential between the land and see.  Makes recreation unbearable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I live in southern California. My parents lived in northern California for 40 years in St. Francis Woods.
> 
> While the weather is gloomier in the northern area of California, it was never "freezing" as you claim.
> 
> Cool year around unlike the southern area, but no snow  like the midwest or the south. A light jacket was all I ever needed there.
> 
> In southern California, you can walk around nearly all year in shorts and tee shirts....which is what I wear nearly all of the time.
> 
> I visit Pismo Beach on the coast at a time share that I have there, every year, and the weather is nearly perfect, and right by the ocean.
> 
> As a whole, the weather is better in California than Florida.
> 
> That is a fact that cannot be disputed.
> 
> Period.
> 
> Now, i am returning to the subject matter relating to this thread. You like where you live, and so do I.
> 
> I am pleased that you are not a resident in my city, and you are obliged to feel the same.
> 
> End of discussion.
Click to expand...

Southern California.  That's even worse . I can just imagine what the illegal alien infestation must be like there.

Do you have any idea what catastrophe is looking over you if the delta levees fall, and the Clifton Forebay closes up ?

INFRASTRUCTURE - Part 2 - California Catastrophe

BTW - southern Californians claim their ocean water is warm.  It's cold by Florida standards.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name of the band was "Purple Mountains", and we played in "Sebastian's" on the 12th floor of Tower 2, in the Pruneyard" shopping mall, in Campbell, California, during the 80s.
> 
> And I teach music lessons now with 3 different companies, and my music is on video right here in this forum.  Dumbass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. All of the above is true. In your imagination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you say I don't have any video of me playing music in USMB ?
> 
> Would you like a free violin lesson, right now ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I started out playing the violin at age 7 and preferred the guitar. So no thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody who plays the guitar would know what the tonic, subdominant, and dominants are for the key of D.  And for the key of A.
> You know them ?
> 
> How about the relative minor chord for D ? Or for C ? Got any clue ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1st and last, 4th and fifth.....tag your it.
> 
> Fill in the rest as it relates to major and minor triads.
Click to expand...

As in the quiz shows when you fail to provide the correct answer, the buzzer sounds off: AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!

The correct answers are:

Key of D - D,G,A
Key of A - A,D,E

Relative minor of D is B minor.  Of C is A minor

You're no guitar player.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
> Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
> Gee, that was tough, huh ?
> Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.
> 
> Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Answer the question or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know it fake news "reports"
> I know it same way everybody knows it.
> From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.
> 
> So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?
> 
> Here is a fact for you, loony tune.
> 
> Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?
> 
> 
> Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ha
> You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?
> 
> And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?
> 
> And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary  home and two rental homes are paid for.....you could not afford to live in the garage of any one of them. As far as wildfires, not a single one near my neighborhood in decades.
> 
> People contract AIDS in different ways. One of them is intravenous drug use with dirty needles...something you likely are very familiar with.
> 
> Earthquakes? There is insurance available to cover property damage, and there has not been a major one since the 90's in Northridge.
> 
> And no I don't listen to CNN, I get my news from satellite radio...as far as the rest if your jealous rage for being a lifelong renter, if you had worked in a better paying career, you would have been able to buy your own home,
> 
> As far as San Francisco goes, you would be picking up aluminum cans and sleeping in Union Square with pigeons and stray animals if you lived there...it is no place for broke, mentally impaired outcasts like you.
Click to expand...

San Francisco is no place for ANYBODY, other than drug dealers, queers and other sex perverts, and corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.

I have owned 2 homes in the past.  I prefer to rent, as I have no maintenance concerns, and am freer to move whenever I might want to.

As for what you claim about wildfires and earthquakes, I don't believe it 

And how did it feel on the 2016 election night, to know that Trump was elected before your States electoral votes ever came into play ?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.
> 
> Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Answer the question or STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it fake news "reports"
> I know it same way everybody knows it.
> From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.
> 
> So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?
> 
> Here is a fact for you, loony tune.
> 
> Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?
> 
> 
> Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ha
> You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?
> 
> And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?
> 
> And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary  home and two rental homes are paid for.....you could not afford to live in the garage of any one of them. As far as wildfires, not a single one near my neighborhood in decades.
> 
> People contract AIDS in different ways. One of them is intravenous drug use with dirty needles...something you likely are very familiar with.
> 
> Earthquakes? There is insurance available to cover property damage, and there has not been a major one since the 90's in Northridge.
> 
> And no I don't listen to CNN, I get my news from satellite radio...as far as the rest if your jealous rage for being a lifelong renter, if you had worked in a better paying career, you would have been able to buy your own home,
> 
> As far as San Francisco goes, you would be picking up aluminum cans and sleeping in Union Square with pigeons and stray animals if you lived there...it is no place for broke, mentally impaired outcasts like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Francisco is no place for ANYBODY, other than drug dealers, queers and other sex perverts, and corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.
> 
> I have owned 2 homes in the past.  I prefer to rent, as I have no maintenance concerns, and am freer to move whenever I might want to.
> 
> As for what you claim about wildfires and earthquakes, I don't believe it
> 
> And how did it feel on the 2016 election night, to know that Trump was elected before your States electoral votes ever came into play ?
Click to expand...


You're still here ranting? WTF is wrong with you?

I like where I live  and you do as well. 

Go away....you're a nutcase.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know it fake news "reports"
> I know it same way everybody knows it.
> From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.
> 
> So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?
> 
> Here is a fact for you, loony tune.
> 
> Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?
> 
> 
> Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ha
> You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?
> 
> And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?
> 
> And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary  home and two rental homes are paid for.....you could not afford to live in the garage of any one of them. As far as wildfires, not a single one near my neighborhood in decades.
> 
> People contract AIDS in different ways. One of them is intravenous drug use with dirty needles...something you likely are very familiar with.
> 
> Earthquakes? There is insurance available to cover property damage, and there has not been a major one since the 90's in Northridge.
> 
> And no I don't listen to CNN, I get my news from satellite radio...as far as the rest if your jealous rage for being a lifelong renter, if you had worked in a better paying career, you would have been able to buy your own home,
> 
> As far as San Francisco goes, you would be picking up aluminum cans and sleeping in Union Square with pigeons and stray animals if you lived there...it is no place for broke, mentally impaired outcasts like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Francisco is no place for ANYBODY, other than drug dealers, queers and other sex perverts, and corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.
> 
> I have owned 2 homes in the past.  I prefer to rent, as I have no maintenance concerns, and am freer to move whenever I might want to.
> 
> As for what you claim about wildfires and earthquakes, I don't believe it
> 
> And how did it feel on the 2016 election night, to know that Trump was elected before your States electoral votes ever came into play ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still here ranting? WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> I like where I live  and you do as well.
> 
> Go away....you're a nutcase.
Click to expand...

"End of discussion" for me is when I decide it has ended.

Getting back to the topic, there is very little white supremacy in America.  Almost non-existent.

Black Supremacy however is very common.  It is in every Affirmative Action program, and everywhere blacks are pandered to, as in the 10 examples presented in my Quiz for Liberals thread.

Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.
> 
> So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?
> 
> Here is a fact for you, loony tune.
> 
> Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?
> 
> 
> Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha
> You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?
> 
> And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?
> 
> And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My primary  home and two rental homes are paid for.....you could not afford to live in the garage of any one of them. As far as wildfires, not a single one near my neighborhood in decades.
> 
> People contract AIDS in different ways. One of them is intravenous drug use with dirty needles...something you likely are very familiar with.
> 
> Earthquakes? There is insurance available to cover property damage, and there has not been a major one since the 90's in Northridge.
> 
> And no I don't listen to CNN, I get my news from satellite radio...as far as the rest if your jealous rage for being a lifelong renter, if you had worked in a better paying career, you would have been able to buy your own home,
> 
> As far as San Francisco goes, you would be picking up aluminum cans and sleeping in Union Square with pigeons and stray animals if you lived there...it is no place for broke, mentally impaired outcasts like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Francisco is no place for ANYBODY, other than drug dealers, queers and other sex perverts, and corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.
> 
> I have owned 2 homes in the past.  I prefer to rent, as I have no maintenance concerns, and am freer to move whenever I might want to.
> 
> As for what you claim about wildfires and earthquakes, I don't believe it
> 
> And how did it feel on the 2016 election night, to know that Trump was elected before your States electoral votes ever came into play ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still here ranting? WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> I like where I live  and you do as well.
> 
> Go away....you're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "End of discussion" for me is when I decide it has ended.
> 
> Getting back to the topic, there is very little white supremacy in America.  Almost non-existent.
> 
> Black Supremacy however is very common.  It is in every Affirmative Action program, and everywhere blacks are pandered to, as in the 10 examples presented in my Quiz for Liberals thread.
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


End of discussion for me is when I decide to stop responding.

And that time is now. Your circular reasoning is that of someone who is not dealing with a full deck.

Talk to yourself, I've got better things to do.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha ha
> You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?
> 
> And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?
> 
> And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My primary  home and two rental homes are paid for.....you could not afford to live in the garage of any one of them. As far as wildfires, not a single one near my neighborhood in decades.
> 
> People contract AIDS in different ways. One of them is intravenous drug use with dirty needles...something you likely are very familiar with.
> 
> Earthquakes? There is insurance available to cover property damage, and there has not been a major one since the 90's in Northridge.
> 
> And no I don't listen to CNN, I get my news from satellite radio...as far as the rest if your jealous rage for being a lifelong renter, if you had worked in a better paying career, you would have been able to buy your own home,
> 
> As far as San Francisco goes, you would be picking up aluminum cans and sleeping in Union Square with pigeons and stray animals if you lived there...it is no place for broke, mentally impaired outcasts like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> San Francisco is no place for ANYBODY, other than drug dealers, queers and other sex perverts, and corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.
> 
> I have owned 2 homes in the past.  I prefer to rent, as I have no maintenance concerns, and am freer to move whenever I might want to.
> 
> As for what you claim about wildfires and earthquakes, I don't believe it
> 
> And how did it feel on the 2016 election night, to know that Trump was elected before your States electoral votes ever came into play ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still here ranting? WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> I like where I live  and you do as well.
> 
> Go away....you're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "End of discussion" for me is when I decide it has ended.
> 
> Getting back to the topic, there is very little white supremacy in America.  Almost non-existent.
> 
> Black Supremacy however is very common.  It is in every Affirmative Action program, and everywhere blacks are pandered to, as in the 10 examples presented in my Quiz for Liberals thread.
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> End of discussion for me is when I decide to stop responding.
> 
> And that time is now. Your circular reasoning is that of someone who is not dealing with a full deck.
> 
> Talk to yourself, I've got better things to do.
Click to expand...

I've already left this  thread.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol. You fixed income, rent controlled, government leech.
> 
> I turned down several opportunities to move down south before retirement. Florida happened to be one of the states that I passed on, Georgia was another.
> 
> If I had chosen to uproot my family and go, I would have lived far better than you, in fact,  someone like you probably would have been cutting my lawn, or cleaning my house.
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.
> 
> Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.
Click to expand...

If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:

*Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
*Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
*By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*



Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program

* Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.

*Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.

Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.

The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how would you know that they choose to be unemployed?
> 
> You need to make up your mind. grandma.
> On one hand, you claim that "blacks are doing better than whites, and get better jobs".
> 
> Now that you were presented with facts regarding unemployment, you are stating that the unemployed blacks are unemployed by choice"
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
> 
> You need to call for one of the staff at the VA mental ward and request a medication check.
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
> Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
> Gee, that was tough, huh ?
> Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.
> 
> Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Answer the question or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know it fake news "reports"
> I know it same way everybody knows it.
> From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.
> 
> So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?
> 
> Here is a fact for you, loony tune.
> 
> Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?
> 
> 
> Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ha
> You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?
> 
> And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?
> 
> And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.
Click to expand...

Have you noticed how no matter what the topic protectionist can't find a single pleasant or positive thing to say?  

Can you imagine having to work with him every day?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My primary  home and two rental homes are paid for.....you could not afford to live in the garage of any one of them. As far as wildfires, not a single one near my neighborhood in decades.
> 
> People contract AIDS in different ways. One of them is intravenous drug use with dirty needles...something you likely are very familiar with.
> 
> Earthquakes? There is insurance available to cover property damage, and there has not been a major one since the 90's in Northridge.
> 
> And no I don't listen to CNN, I get my news from satellite radio...as far as the rest if your jealous rage for being a lifelong renter, if you had worked in a better paying career, you would have been able to buy your own home,
> 
> As far as San Francisco goes, you would be picking up aluminum cans and sleeping in Union Square with pigeons and stray animals if you lived there...it is no place for broke, mentally impaired outcasts like you.
> 
> 
> 
> San Francisco is no place for ANYBODY, other than drug dealers, queers and other sex perverts, and corrupt politicians like Nancy Pelosi and Kamala Harris.
> 
> I have owned 2 homes in the past.  I prefer to rent, as I have no maintenance concerns, and am freer to move whenever I might want to.
> 
> As for what you claim about wildfires and earthquakes, I don't believe it
> 
> And how did it feel on the 2016 election night, to know that Trump was elected before your States electoral votes ever came into play ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're still here ranting? WTF is wrong with you?
> 
> I like where I live  and you do as well.
> 
> Go away....you're a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "End of discussion" for me is when I decide it has ended.
> 
> Getting back to the topic, there is very little white supremacy in America.  Almost non-existent.
> 
> Black Supremacy however is very common.  It is in every Affirmative Action program, and everywhere blacks are pandered to, as in the 10 examples presented in my Quiz for Liberals thread.
> 
> Error | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> End of discussion for me is when I decide to stop responding.
> 
> And that time is now. Your circular reasoning is that of someone who is not dealing with a full deck.
> 
> Talk to yourself, I've got better things to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already left this  thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## tigerred59

Porter Rockwell said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You misquoted her. Your entire position is false.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."
> 
> You sure about that, chief??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have given them the facts about immigration, and I have in more in the field experience from all sides than any man alive today, they reject the facts, ignore the evidence and *every* thread I participate in becomes a shitstorm.
> 
> Try telling people that the public is fickle and you cannot criminalize Liberty, they act as if you just raped their 11 year old daughter.  Tell them that coming into the United States without papers is not a crime, but a civil violation of the law and they will send death threats to your house.  Remind them that it was the right that created the precedent that allowed sanctuary cities and prevented local governments from enforcing federal gun control laws and they either ignore you or send assassins to your home.
> 
> Yeah, they've sent people to shoot into my house.  For five years I had a stalker that followed me day and night until I put a bounty out on him and it was substantial.  So, yeah, I'm sure about what I'm telling you.
> 
> BTW, if you leave the right alone, they are advocating enforcing immigration laws that were designed to dilute the white vote and marginalize the whites.  All you have to do is remain silent and they will give America away to foreigners.  Just make sure they come in _"legally_" as the right erroneously calls it.  But, yeah, I'm sure of it.
Click to expand...

*Do you know who profits from illegal immigration? WHITE BUSINESS OWNERS!! Go to any construction site, any place that sells food to the public, any hotel, etc....it ain't po black negro's and po white trash hiring illegals, who flood this country, ITS WHITE BUSINESS OWNERS, NOW TAKE YOUR BLANKET AND FIND A MIRROR.*


----------



## squeeze berry

harmonica said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> The matter of ethnicity and intelligence simply cannot  be discussed in public, not even in university classrooms.
> 
> This is a topic that is discussed only in private.
> 
> In fact, if it were ever "proved" that the Martians, for example, are more intelligent than the inhabitants of Earth, that information would have to be suppressed, lest it give human beings an inferiority complex.
> 
> As I understand it, most websites will not even allow a discussion of this topic.  Received wisdom holds that both Martians and human beings are equally intelligent. Any deviation from this position constitutes "hate speech" and is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there is no relationship between ethnicity and intelligence. Forums like this are evidence of this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Asians are smarter than blacks
Click to expand...



who isn't?


----------



## IM2

squeeze berry said:


> harmonica said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TheParser said:
> 
> 
> 
> The matter of ethnicity and intelligence simply cannot  be discussed in public, not even in university classrooms.
> 
> This is a topic that is discussed only in private.
> 
> In fact, if it were ever "proved" that the Martians, for example, are more intelligent than the inhabitants of Earth, that information would have to be suppressed, lest it give human beings an inferiority complex.
> 
> As I understand it, most websites will not even allow a discussion of this topic.  Received wisdom holds that both Martians and human beings are equally intelligent. Any deviation from this position constitutes "hate speech" and is prohibited.
> 
> 
> 
> That's because there is no relationship between ethnicity and intelligence. Forums like this are evidence of this reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the Asians are smarter than blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who isn't?
Click to expand...

You.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

tigerred59 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have time for your racist idiocy tonight.  You are a slave to hatred, slavery, and stupidity.  You've made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> 
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."
> 
> You sure about that, chief??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have given them the facts about immigration, and I have in more in the field experience from all sides than any man alive today, they reject the facts, ignore the evidence and *every* thread I participate in becomes a shitstorm.
> 
> Try telling people that the public is fickle and you cannot criminalize Liberty, they act as if you just raped their 11 year old daughter.  Tell them that coming into the United States without papers is not a crime, but a civil violation of the law and they will send death threats to your house.  Remind them that it was the right that created the precedent that allowed sanctuary cities and prevented local governments from enforcing federal gun control laws and they either ignore you or send assassins to your home.
> 
> Yeah, they've sent people to shoot into my house.  For five years I had a stalker that followed me day and night until I put a bounty out on him and it was substantial.  So, yeah, I'm sure about what I'm telling you.
> 
> BTW, if you leave the right alone, they are advocating enforcing immigration laws that were designed to dilute the white vote and marginalize the whites.  All you have to do is remain silent and they will give America away to foreigners.  Just make sure they come in _"legally_" as the right erroneously calls it.  But, yeah, I'm sure of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know who profits from illegal immigration? WHITE BUSINESS OWNERS!! Go to any construction site, any place that sells food to the public, any hotel, etc....it ain't po black negro's and po white trash hiring illegals, who flood this country, ITS WHITE BUSINESS OWNERS, NOW TAKE YOUR BLANKET AND FIND A MIRROR.*
Click to expand...


The whole purpose in working nights, holidays, and weekends while creating a business is to make a profit.  That is the objective.  The objective is not to create jobs for people.  That is not a requirement of any business.

You are arguing for a side that conflates *Liberty* with *citizenship*.  The Declaration of Independence, written before there were any citizens of the United States has this:

_"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness_..."

People have an *unalienable* Right to accept opportunities willingly offered by an employer.  The word *unalienable* has a meaning.  The word *unalienable* was defined by the EARLY courts.  Due to the actions of the right wing, those *unalienable* Rights no longer exist.  

Neither side understands the concept.  An *unalienable* Right is above the law.  When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence.  When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights,  your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval.  The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right.  It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_.  In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.

It is Americans that rent to foreigners; it is Americans that buy from, sell to, and otherwise do business with foreigners.  It is Americans voting for American politicians that attempt to give foreigners access to the benefits and privileges of citizenship.  It's YOUR side that demands that foreigners become citizens.  AND once you've created that monster, it takes over your country, rendering this part of the discussion moot.  But, "_white_" business owners?  Think again paleface.  Much of America is owned by foreign businesses.  Your failure to understand means that you cannot solve the real issue.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> 
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.
> 
> Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:
> 
> *Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
> in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
> *Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
> *By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program
> 
> * Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
> 
> *Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.
> 
> Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.
> 
> The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​
Click to expand...

I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you are the one needing mental help.
> Those blacks who choose to be unemployed, choose it.  Others who choose to work, do that.
> Gee, that was tough, huh ?
> Something tells me you wouldn't make it as a music student . It takes a brain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I WAS a music student, retard. Played the guitar since the age of 8.
> 
> Secondly, you allege that of the 6% of blacks who are unemployed, that they "choose to be".
> 
> How do you know that?
> 
> Answer the question or STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know it fake news "reports"
> I know it same way everybody knows it.
> From blacks themselves saying it and doing it.  Seen them for 60 years in 5 States of the US. What else is new ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Typical. You make statements, then make up lies to justify them.
> 
> So now you are stating that unemployed black people are unemployed by choice?
> 
> Here is a fact for you, loony tune.
> 
> Here in California, you can exit any freeway offramp in most areas and see able bodied white males holding cardboard signs begging for handouts, and right beside them on the same offramp is a hispanic person, selling oranges, peanuts, flowers and numerous other things.
> 
> Why?
> 
> Would  the white beggar also be a so called  "victim of AA" like you?
> 
> 
> Make up a good one...you're on a roll, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha ha
> You live in California, and you call ME a loser ? Lol.  How much money are they gouging you to live in the worst state in America ?  Are you ready for the next earthquake ? The next winter flood ?  The next summer fires ?
> 
> And how about those shores you laughably call beaches ?  Next time you go there don't forget your winter jacket.  And you don't happen to live in San Francisco, do you ?  Got AIDS yet ?
> 
> And you do know it's the illegal aliens that are lighting all those wildfires, right ? Oh, that's right.  You watch CNN.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Have you noticed how no matter what the topic protectionist can't find a single pleasant or positive thing to say?
> 
> Can you imagine having to work with him every day?
Click to expand...

I tend to treat people about the same way they treat me.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> His caretakers at the VA mental ward must be miserable...lol.


And they talk about me being unpleasant and negative.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the racist here buddy. I'm not the on posting lunacy about how America was founded for one specific race and how constitutional amendments are legal. You're the one who has made your own Hell on earth and seem to love to wallow in self pity and blame for everybody but yourself for your failures in life.
> 
> I built 3 sucessful organizations and retired from that work at age 52. If I have failed then success does not exist, boy. What I am doing is speaking truth and you can't handle it. You're the one that hates. You see Junior, for as long as you have studied that crazy shit, I have studied white racism. In fact, that's required learning in the black community. You are the example of the 21st century white supremacist and the only tool you  have is gaslighting. That's why you're here arguing a hate filled argument and claim I'm the racist for exposing you for what you are.
> 
> And I am going to continue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."
> 
> You sure about that, chief??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have given them the facts about immigration, and I have in more in the field experience from all sides than any man alive today, they reject the facts, ignore the evidence and *every* thread I participate in becomes a shitstorm.
> 
> Try telling people that the public is fickle and you cannot criminalize Liberty, they act as if you just raped their 11 year old daughter.  Tell them that coming into the United States without papers is not a crime, but a civil violation of the law and they will send death threats to your house.  Remind them that it was the right that created the precedent that allowed sanctuary cities and prevented local governments from enforcing federal gun control laws and they either ignore you or send assassins to your home.
> 
> Yeah, they've sent people to shoot into my house.  For five years I had a stalker that followed me day and night until I put a bounty out on him and it was substantial.  So, yeah, I'm sure about what I'm telling you.
> 
> BTW, if you leave the right alone, they are advocating enforcing immigration laws that were designed to dilute the white vote and marginalize the whites.  All you have to do is remain silent and they will give America away to foreigners.  Just make sure they come in _"legally_" as the right erroneously calls it.  But, yeah, I'm sure of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know who profits from illegal immigration? WHITE BUSINESS OWNERS!! Go to any construction site, any place that sells food to the public, any hotel, etc....it ain't po black negro's and po white trash hiring illegals, who flood this country, ITS WHITE BUSINESS OWNERS, NOW TAKE YOUR BLANKET AND FIND A MIRROR.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole purpose in working nights, holidays, and weekends while creating a business is to make a profit.  That is the objective.  The objective is not to create jobs for people.  That is not a requirement of any business.
> 
> You are arguing for a side that conflates *Liberty* with *citizenship*.  The Declaration of Independence, written before there were any citizens of the United States has this:
> 
> _"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness_..."
> 
> People have an *unalienable* Right to accept opportunities willingly offered by an employer.  The word *unalienable* has a meaning.  The word *unalienable* was defined by the EARLY courts.  Due to the actions of the right wing, those *unalienable* Rights no longer exist.
> 
> Neither side understands the concept.  An *unalienable* Right is above the law.  When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence.  When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights,  your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval.  The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right.  It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_.  In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.
> 
> It is Americans that rent to foreigners; it is Americans that buy from, sell to, and otherwise do business with foreigners.  It is Americans voting for American politicians that attempt to give foreigners access to the benefits and privileges of citizenship.  It's YOUR side that demands that foreigners become citizens.  AND once you've created that monster, it takes over your country, rendering this part of the discussion moot.  But, "_white_" business owners?  Think again paleface.  Much of America is owned by foreign businesses.  Your failure to understand means that you cannot solve the real issue.
Click to expand...


Jibberish.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just saw a Chinese girl on the Dr. Phil Show expose people like you.
> 
> 
> They called her a racist too for simply quoting the facts.  The facts are facts.  They have no agenda.  You do.  The *first *Naturalization Act says what it says.  If you've wasted that much of your life fretting over racism, you wasted your life.
> 
> I worked in immigration law for six years, working for the prosecution side, defense side, expert witness, and working with undocumented foreigners with peripheral problems (like getting payment plans set up to pay their doctor bills.)  When I cite the facts, Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc.
> 
> But, like I told you.  I don't give a shit who believes what.  I can tell people the truth and that's it.  Your hatred is becoming contagious and should a race war break out, you will be responsible for much of the carnage.
> 
> You're not too retired or doing so good.  You won't meet me face to face and talk skeet before a live audience.  If you took your circus show on the road, you wouldn't have an audience any more.
> 
> 
> 
> "Trump's people are equally sure that I am a race traitor, negrophilist, leftist, etc."
> 
> You sure about that, chief??
> 
> Greg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I have given them the facts about immigration, and I have in more in the field experience from all sides than any man alive today, they reject the facts, ignore the evidence and *every* thread I participate in becomes a shitstorm.
> 
> Try telling people that the public is fickle and you cannot criminalize Liberty, they act as if you just raped their 11 year old daughter.  Tell them that coming into the United States without papers is not a crime, but a civil violation of the law and they will send death threats to your house.  Remind them that it was the right that created the precedent that allowed sanctuary cities and prevented local governments from enforcing federal gun control laws and they either ignore you or send assassins to your home.
> 
> Yeah, they've sent people to shoot into my house.  For five years I had a stalker that followed me day and night until I put a bounty out on him and it was substantial.  So, yeah, I'm sure about what I'm telling you.
> 
> BTW, if you leave the right alone, they are advocating enforcing immigration laws that were designed to dilute the white vote and marginalize the whites.  All you have to do is remain silent and they will give America away to foreigners.  Just make sure they come in _"legally_" as the right erroneously calls it.  But, yeah, I'm sure of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Do you know who profits from illegal immigration? WHITE BUSINESS OWNERS!! Go to any construction site, any place that sells food to the public, any hotel, etc....it ain't po black negro's and po white trash hiring illegals, who flood this country, ITS WHITE BUSINESS OWNERS, NOW TAKE YOUR BLANKET AND FIND A MIRROR.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The whole purpose in working nights, holidays, and weekends while creating a business is to make a profit.  That is the objective.  The objective is not to create jobs for people.  That is not a requirement of any business.
> 
> You are arguing for a side that conflates *Liberty* with *citizenship*.  The Declaration of Independence, written before there were any citizens of the United States has this:
> 
> _"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that *all men* are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable *Rights, that among these are Life, *Liberty* and the pursuit of Happiness_..."
> 
> People have an *unalienable* Right to accept opportunities willingly offered by an employer.  The word *unalienable* has a meaning.  The word *unalienable* was defined by the EARLY courts.  Due to the actions of the right wing, those *unalienable* Rights no longer exist.
> 
> Neither side understands the concept.  An *unalienable* Right is above the law.  When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence.  When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights,  your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval.  The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right.  It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_.  In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.
> 
> It is Americans that rent to foreigners; it is Americans that buy from, sell to, and otherwise do business with foreigners.  It is Americans voting for American politicians that attempt to give foreigners access to the benefits and privileges of citizenship.  It's YOUR side that demands that foreigners become citizens.  AND once you've created that monster, it takes over your country, rendering this part of the discussion moot.  But, "_white_" business owners?  Think again paleface.  Much of America is owned by foreign businesses.  Your failure to understand means that you cannot solve the real issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Jibberish.
Click to expand...


Facts you can't handle.  You've already proven you'd fail a grade school civics test, so you don't need to rattle my cage.


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

Porter Rockwell said:


> An *unalienable* Right is above the law. When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights, your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right. It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_. In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.


Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights".  And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights.  Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.

*Citizenship*, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and *in turn is entitled to its protection*. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.

Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.

*Human Rights*
Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy. 

*Civil Rights*
Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights *that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state*. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.​The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right.  I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary

14th Amendment
1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *|* nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *| *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.
> 
> Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:
> 
> *Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
> in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
> *Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
> *By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program
> 
> * Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
> 
> *Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.
> 
> Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.
> 
> The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
Click to expand...

Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?


----------



## protectionist

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.
> 
> Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:
> 
> *Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
> in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
> *Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
> *By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program
> 
> * Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
> 
> *Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.
> 
> Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.
> 
> The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?
Click to expand...

VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
  Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> You earn money teaching music lessons?  Can you lawfully do that while you're receiving social security benefits?  What about a VA pension?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.
> 
> Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:
> 
> *Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
> in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
> *Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
> *By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program
> 
> * Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
> 
> *Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.
> 
> Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.
> 
> The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
Click to expand...

Hold on there Hoss...as a geezer and as a Vet..I take exception.

First..Social Security Insurance...the last word is the important one..you were not 'paying into' Social Security..you were paying an insurance premium. It is almost a dead certainty that you  will take out far more than you put in.  People are just living far longer than they did in 1936--and the draws on the SS fund encompass a lot more than was envisioned--probably a race as to which drops dead first..you or Social Security!

How, exactly, did you pay into your VA pension? With your service? That's lame..the reason we call it service..is that we offer it to our country.. In return, in appreciation of that service..our country gifts certain low-income senior Vets with a pension. Unless you are service-connected--then I guess you could claim your disability is 'payment' but it grates..that anyone would see it so. If you are retired after 20+...they did YOU a favor..but I gather that is not the case, for you.   Oh well..it takes all kinds~


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.
> 
> Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:
> 
> *Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
> in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
> *Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
> *By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program
> 
> * Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
> 
> *Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.
> 
> Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.
> 
> The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
Click to expand...

But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~


----------



## Porter Rockwell

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> An *unalienable* Right is above the law. When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights, your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right. It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_. In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights".  And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights.  Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.
> 
> *Citizenship*, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and *in turn is entitled to its protection*. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.
> 
> Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> *Human Rights*
> Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.
> 
> *Civil Rights*
> Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights *that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state*. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.​The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right.  I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *|* nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *| *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
Click to expand...



Your post is absolute bullshit.  By the numbers

1)  Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment

Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?

2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment

3)  Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)

4)  Civil rights are government created rights

What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw

See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From?  They are all man made law, NOT *unalienable* Rights

5)  Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:

"_All *persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States; nor shall any state deprive *any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."

A)  A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment *citizen.  *They get certain _privileges and immunities_

B)  Under the 14th Amendment EVERY *person* (as differentiated from a _citizen_) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.

So, every *person* is entitled to *government granted* Life, Liberty and Property and* citizens* get additional *privileges and immunities*

6)  Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY *unalienable* Rights.  *The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights.  *The terminology of Right, Rights, or *unalienable* Rights does not appear in the 14th Amendment

7) * Unalienable* Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, *absolute*, God given, and above the law by the courts.  Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word *unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS*. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.

END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course.  You thought SS had something to do with working ?  Ha ha
> 
> SS isn't welfare, lass.  Neither is a VA pension.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither is what I do.  You can't receive welfare unless you have a minor child so your fantasies of me waiting on a government check are just wishful thinking on your part.
> 
> I do remember you complaining about affirmative action and per usual were blaming it for the amount of your retirement benefits which you stated were insufficient.  I don't know anything about VA pensions and not that much about social security except that you can draw benefits if you are permanently disabled, but from what I've read VA pensions are available to low-income veterans who do not qualify for full military benefits.  So is the following accurate?
> 
> *Veterans Pension*
> *Supplemental Income for Wartime Veterans*
> VA helps Veterans and their families cope with financial challenges by providing supplemental income through the Veterans Pension benefit. Veterans Pension is a tax-free monetary benefit payable to *low-income* wartime Veterans.
> 
> *Eligibility*
> [snipped]
> 
> In addition to meeting minimum service requirements, the Veteran must be:
> 
> Age 65 or older, *OR*
> Totally and permanently disabled, *OR*
> A patient in a nursing home receiving skilled nursing care, *OR*
> Receiving Social Security Disability Insurance, *OR*
> Receiving Supplemental Security Income
> Your yearly family income must be less than the amount set by Congress to qualify for the Veterans Pension benefit. Learn more about income and net worth limitation, and see an example of how VA calculates the VA Pension benefit.
> 
> Here
> *Income and Net Worth Limitations*
> *Countable income* includes income from most sources as well as from any eligible dependents. It generally includes earnings, disability and retirement payments, interest and dividend payments from annuities, and net income from farming or a business. Some expenses, such as unreimbursed medical expenses, may reduce your countable income.
> 
> *Net worth* is the sum of a claimant’s or beneficiary’s assets and annual income. You should report all of your net worth. For purposes of entitlement to VA pension, the net worth limit effective December 1, 2018 is $127,061.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.
> 
> Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:
> 
> *Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
> in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
> *Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
> *By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program
> 
> * Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
> 
> *Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.
> 
> Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.
> 
> The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hold on there Hoss...as a geezer and as a Vet..I take exception.
> 
> First..Social Security Insurance...the last word is the important one..you were not 'paying into' Social Security..you were paying an insurance premium. It is almost a dead certainty that you  will take out far more than you put in.  People are just living far longer than they did in 1936--and the draws on the SS fund encompass a lot more than was envisioned--probably a race as to which drops dead first..you or Social Security!
> 
> How, exactly, did you pay into your VA pension? With your service? That's lame..the reason we call it service..is that we offer it to our country.. In return, in appreciation of that service..our country gifts certain low-income senior Vets with a pension. Unless you are service-connected--then I guess you could claim your disability is 'payment' but it grates..that anyone would see it so. If you are retired after 20+...they did YOU a favor..but I gather that is not the case, for you.   Oh well..it takes all kinds~
Click to expand...

You don't have the foggiest idea of what you're talking about.

And paying into a VA pension by one's service is "lame" ?  Lol .YOU are what is lame.  In the brain


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like you haven't been around too much.  Eligibility for welfare varies from state to state, county to county, and city to city.  Been that way as long as I can remember.
> 
> In 1974, then President Ford refused to even talk to New York City's mayor Abe Beame, who went to Washington DC for money, when NY was going bankrupt, because they were giving EVERYONE welfare.
> 
> Millions of Puerto Ricans and poor blacks from the south poured into New York to take advantage of New York's idiotic ultra-liberal welfare laws.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:
> 
> *Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
> in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
> *Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
> *By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program
> 
> * Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
> 
> *Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.
> 
> Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.
> 
> The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
Click to expand...

FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.

In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"

PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.

PPS - I am not indigent without my VA pension.  Without it, I have enough income to cover my reasonably good home, my utilities, food, et al, and am still qualified by the VA.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> An *unalienable* Right is above the law. When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights, your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right. It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_. In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights".  And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights.  Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.
> 
> *Citizenship*, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and *in turn is entitled to its protection*. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.
> 
> Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> *Human Rights*
> Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.
> 
> *Civil Rights*
> Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights *that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state*. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.​The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right.  I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *|* nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *| *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is absolute bullshit.  By the numbers
> 
> 1)  Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> 2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment
> 
> 3)  Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)
> 
> 4)  Civil rights are government created rights
> 
> What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw
> 
> See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From?  They are all man made law, NOT *unalienable* Rights
> 
> 5)  Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "_All *persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States; nor shall any state deprive *any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> A)  A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment *citizen.  *They get certain _privileges and immunities_
> 
> B)  Under the 14th Amendment EVERY *person* (as differentiated from a _citizen_) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.
> 
> So, every *person* is entitled to *government granted* Life, Liberty and Property and* citizens* get additional *privileges and immunities*
> 
> 6)  Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY *unalienable* Rights.  *The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights.  *The terminology of Right, Rights, or *unalienable* Right hes does not appear in the 14th Amendment
> 
> 7) * Unalienable* Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, *absolute*, God given, and above the law by the courts.  Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word *unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS*. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.
> 
> END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
Click to expand...

But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen.  Children of foreigners are not included.

From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.

At least, this is the law.  Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.

BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're talking about anything other than Aid For Dependant Children then you're a government welfare recipient yourself:
> 
> *Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children*
> in: Programs, Public Relief/Public Welfare
> *Aid for Dependent Children (ADC: 1935-1961)*
> *By: John E. Hansan, Ph.D.*
> 
> 
> 
> Social Welfare Board Poster for Newly Enacted ADC Program
> 
> * Introduction:* Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) was established by the Social Security Act of 1935 as a grant program to enable states to provide cash welfare payments for needy children who had been deprived of parental support or care because their father or mother was absent from the home, incapacitated, deceased, or unemployed. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands operated an AFDC program. States defined “need,” set their own benefit levels, established (within federal limitations) income and resource limits, and administered the program or supervised its administration. States were entitled to unlimited federal funds for reimbursement of benefit payments, at “matching” rates that were inversely related to state per capita income. States were required to provide aid to all persons who were in classes eligible under federal law and whose income and resources were within state-set limits.
> 
> *Early Years:* The 1935 Social Security Act, however, was not the first government income support provided to poor children in the United States. In most cases, ADC added federal aid to state mothers’ pension programs, which were already assisting “deserving” poor lone mothers. Several features of the new ADC program kept states from abandoning their current efforts following the passage of the Social Security Act. Federal ADC aid was contingent on state contributions, and states were given considerable discretion to determine ADC eligibility and grant levels. For example, a state could continue to require that only children living in so-called “suitable homes” could receive assistance. Until they were struck down in 1960, these requirements were used to exclude “undesirable” families from aid, particularly children of never-married or African-American mothers.
> 
> Although the ADC subsidy was originally intended to allow mothers to stay at home to care for their children, a series of cultural, demographic, and policy shifts related to marriage, poverty, and women’s employment began to undermine public support for that goal. Concerns about whether the ADC subsidy inadvertently encouraged unwed motherhood arose early on in some states. From a federal perspective, these concerns were short-circuited by the perception that ADC was a program for families headed by widows. In 1939, however, Survivors Benefits were added to the mainstream Social Security program that separately aided widows—the most “deserving” of mothers—and left the ADC program to serve a caseload of apparently less deserving single mothers.
> 
> The original title of the program was Aid to Dependent Children. The stated purpose of Title IV was to provide financial assistance to needy dependent children. The federal program made no provision for assisting a parent or other relative in the household although it did specify that the child must live with a parent or other close relatives to be eligible for federal aid. It was not until 1950 that the federal government began to share in the maintenance costs of a caretaker relative the child of an unemployed parent and that parent (AFDC-Unemployed Parent), effective in 1961; a second parent in a family with an incapacitated or unemployed parent was allowed effective in 1962 and the name of the program was changed to Aid to Families with Dependent Children.
> Public Welfare: Aid for Dependent Children​
> 
> 
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
Click to expand...


Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.

I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.

You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.

To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
Click to expand...

YOU are the disgrace here.  I'm not using anything.  I am receiving what I and other vets have EARNED.  And for you to mock that, makes you one of the lowest creatures in existence.

I don't care if you are a vet or not, you shouldn't be downgrading the system that rewards vets for their service.

Instead of insulting, you should show your graditude to every veteran, no matter what their financial status may be.

And if you don't like how the VA or US govt operates, you can get your bitchy ass out of the country, and go move somewhere else.  Plenty of options.  China, Cuba, Mexico, Syria.  Bon voyage!


----------



## The Purge




----------



## The Purge




----------



## tigerred59

*I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.*


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?
> 
> 
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU are the disgrace here.  I'm not using anything.  I am receiving what I and other vets have EARNED.  And for you to mock that, makes you one of the lowest creatures in existence.
> 
> I don't care if you are a vet or not, you shouldn't be downgrading the system that rewards vets for their service.
> 
> Instead of insulting, you should show your graditude to every veteran, no matter what their financial status may be.
> 
> And if you don't like how the VA or US govt operates, you can get your bitchy ass out of the country and go move somewhere else.  Plenty of options.  China, Cuba, Mexico, Syria.  Bon voyage!
Click to expand...


Or...I could show you the same attitude you show others--as a vet I'm fully aware that just serving in the military is no indication of intelligence or ethical integrity...you being a case in point. As you say...I earned the right to my opinions.
Downgrading the people who pay your way..using your service to represent a platform of hate and ignorance...makes you a user who is beneath contempt...that you use your service as an excuse to claim some sort of entitlement just adds to the irony.
If I don't like policy...I work to change it. As it happens...I have no issues with the VA pension system..it is a good thing..to provide for the needy and unlucky vets. It's just a shame users like you scheme your way in.

How you could claim any sort of superiority to anyone....is a mystery..to me.


----------



## tigerred59

The Purge said:


>


*THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED. *


----------



## The Purge

tigerred59 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED. *
Click to expand...

Only the felonious  BLACK THUGS, that attack whites!


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

tigerred59 said:


> *I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.*


Anyone who claims any sort of superiority based on race..is by definition ignorant.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YOU are the disgrace here.  I'm not using anything.  I am receiving what I and other vets have EARNED.  And for you to mock that, makes you one of the lowest creatures in existence.
> 
> I don't care if you are a vet or not, you shouldn't be downgrading the system that rewards vets for their service.
> 
> Instead of insulting, you should show your graditude to every veteran, no matter what their financial status may be.
> 
> And if you don't like how the VA or US govt operates, you can get your bitchy ass out of the country and go move somewhere else.  Plenty of options.  China, Cuba, Mexico, Syria.  Bon voyage!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or...I could show you the same attitude you show others--as a vet I'm fully aware that just serving in the military is no indication of intelligence or ethical integrity...you being a case in point. As you say...I earned the right to my opinions.
> Downgrading the people who pay your way..using your service to represent a platform of hate and ignorance...makes you a user who is beneath contempt...that you use your service as an excuse to claim some sort of entitlement just adds to the irony.
> If I don't like policy...I work to change it. As it happens...I have no issues with the VA pension system..it is a good thing..to provide for the needy and unlucky vets. It's just a shame users like you scheme your way in.
> 
> How you could claim any sort of superiority to anyone....is a mystery..to me.
Click to expand...

Without needing to individually address the 8 idiotic things you just said, since you aren't worth that much of my time, I will just say that you make it obvious that a great many things are undoubtedly a mystery to you.

That's one of the setbacks you suffer from being an imbecile.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.*
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone who claims any sort of superiority based on race..is by definition ignorant.
Click to expand...

I am neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it here, but upon what do you base that statement ?


----------



## protectionist

tigerred59 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED. *
Click to expand...

Upon what do you base the statement that white men love shooting unarmed black men ?

Note:.  there really is no such thing as "unarmed"


----------



## protectionist

tigerred59 said:


> *I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.*


So what DO you say that Trump did wrong ? - excluding the many airhead Democrat fabrications, resulting from them having lost their minds.

And are you aware of the many things he's done right ?


----------



## tigerred59

protectionist said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.*
> 
> 
> 
> So what DO you say that Trump did wrong ? - excluding the many airhead Democrat fabrications, resulting from them having lost their minds.
> 
> And are you aware of the many things he's done right ?
Click to expand...

*President Obama with an open mic, said to Putin, we'll talk after the election,  unquote. The republicans went hog shit crazy on his black ass. Accused him of being a communist, a collaborator with Russia, in addition to all the other racist shit they through at him for 8 yrs, including being called a liar on the house floor....remember that shit with Joe? I don't have the time to go over all the obstructive shit this simplistic white fuck as done, life is just too damned short. What has he done right? Passing criminal reform bill...and since just about everybody he knows is going to prison, it was a smart move on his part.*


----------



## tigerred59

protectionist said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upon what do you base the statement that white men love shooting unarmed black men ?
> 
> Note:.  there really is no such thing as "unarmed"
Click to expand...

*Oh, so e-cigs, expired tags, sitting on a couch minding your own buisness and so on and so on are considered guns.....gotcha*


----------



## Harry Dresden

IM2 said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
Click to expand...

lol...sure it doesnt....


----------



## IM2

Harry Dresden said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...sure it doesnt....
Click to expand...

That's right. It doesn't.


----------



## Harry Dresden

IM2 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...sure it doesnt....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

you are one of the biggest racist in this forum....every fucking thread you do is about how fucked white people are....


----------



## IM2

The Purge said:


> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the felonious  BLACK THUGS, that attack whites!
Click to expand...

Given the history of this country maybe we black men need to just start shooting back. Because unarmed black men are not attacking the saltines who are killing us.


----------



## IM2

Harry Dresden said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...sure it doesnt....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right. It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are one of the biggest racist in this forum....every fucking thread you do is about how fucked white people are....
Click to expand...

Bullshit. I post about whites that are racist. Are you telling me all whites are racists? I don't see your punk ass in threads jumping on whites that have over 1,000 threads about how fucked up black people are. Pointing out racism by whites is not racist.


----------



## Harry Dresden

IM2 said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed.  Only your racist bullshit is welcome here......
> 
> 
> 
> My racist bullshit doesn't exist. When did speaking out against the racism by whites become racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol...sure it doesnt....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right. It doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you are one of the biggest racist in this forum....every fucking thread you do is about how fucked white people are....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. I post about whites that are racist. Are you telling me all whites are racists? I don't see your punk ass in threads jumping on whites that have over 1,000 threads about how fucked up black people are. Pointing out racism by whites is not racist.
Click to expand...

oh bullshit....and you dont see my punk ass in those threads because you are not in them....if you were you would not be saying the shit you just said about me....i have black blood in me,i am probably darker then you,i have had uncles who are mistaken for blacks....many Sicilians are pretty dam dark....try again i am 2...


----------



## protectionist

tigerred59 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I was talking to a white co worker today, she and I, he and I, all of us get along pretty well....except when it comes to Trump...these brain dead fucks still are asking me, what did Trump do wrong? He's a great man....and they say this shit with straight fuckin faces????????? Serious as hell looks.......AND THIS IS WHAT WHITE SUPREMACY ENTAILS?? I had to walk away in total disgust. So help me, some of the most ignorant ppl I have ever ever met in my life, has been white ppl.*
> 
> 
> 
> So what DO you say that Trump did wrong ? - excluding the many airhead Democrat fabrications, resulting from them having lost their minds.
> 
> And are you aware of the many things he's done right ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *President Obama with an open mic, said to Putin, we'll talk after the election,  unquote. The republicans went hog shit crazy on his black ass. Accused him of being a communist, a collaborator with Russia, in addition to all the other racist shit they through at him for 8 yrs, including being called a liar on the house floor....remember that shit with Joe? I don't have the time to go over all the obstructive shit this simplistic white fuck as done, life is just too damned short. What has he done right? Passing criminal reform bill...and since just about everybody he knows is going to prison, it was a smart move on his part.*
Click to expand...

DODGE!  You got challenged to defend a previous post of yours, and you ran away from it.  No answer. Don't have the time ? Ha ha ha.


----------



## protectionist

tigerred59 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Upon what do you base the statement that white men love shooting unarmed black men ?
> 
> Note:.  there really is no such thing as "unarmed"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Oh, so e-cigs, expired tags, sitting on a couch minding your own buisness and so on and so on are considered guns.....gotcha*
Click to expand...

No you don't "gotcha".  If you want to engage in a real debate and intelligent discussion, you have to state what you're talking about.

Who ? What ? Where ? When ?


----------



## katsteve2012

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I receive Social Security (for being old), + a VA pension.  Neither are what is commonly entitle "welfare", which does not require paying into, as these 2 do.
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
Click to expand...


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social Security for being old and a VA pension for being poor?
> 
> 
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tigerred59 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *THE BIGGEST SELLOUTS IN ALL OF BLACK HISTORY, HAS BEEN BLACK MEN. THE SAME SORRY LOTS THAT WHITE MEN LOVE SHOOTING UNARMED. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only the felonious  BLACK THUGS, that attack whites!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Given the history of this country maybe we black men need to just start shooting back. Because unarmed black men are not attacking the saltines who are killing us.
Click to expand...

Sometimes they have been (Michael Brown, Treyvon Martin, Walter Scott, Rodney King, etc)

And some of these unarmed black men who get shot by cops don't get shot because they attacked the cop.  They get shot (in self-defense) because they failed to keep their hands empty and visible.., and ignorant, liberal teachers failed to educate them about how to act when confronting police.

I did a whole OP on this - Another Quiz for Liberals


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
Click to expand...

Legend in your own mind...too funny.
I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> An *unalienable* Right is above the law. When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights, your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right. It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_. In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights".  And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights.  Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.
> 
> *Citizenship*, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and *in turn is entitled to its protection*. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.
> 
> Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> *Human Rights*
> Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.
> 
> *Civil Rights*
> Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights *that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state*. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.​The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right.  I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *|* nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *| *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is absolute bullshit.  By the numbers
> 
> 1)  Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> 2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment
> 
> 3)  Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)
> 
> 4)  Civil rights are government created rights
> 
> What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw
> 
> See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From?  They are all man made law, NOT *unalienable* Rights
> 
> 5)  Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "_All *persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States; nor shall any state deprive *any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> A)  A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment *citizen.  *They get certain _privileges and immunities_
> 
> B)  Under the 14th Amendment EVERY *person* (as differentiated from a _citizen_) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.
> 
> So, every *person* is entitled to *government granted* Life, Liberty and Property and* citizens* get additional *privileges and immunities*
> 
> 6)  Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY *unalienable* Rights.  *The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights.  *The terminology of Right, Rights, or *unalienable* Right hes does not appear in the 14th Amendment
> 
> 7) * Unalienable* Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, *absolute*, God given, and above the law by the courts.  Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word *unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS*. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.
> 
> END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen.  Children of foreigners are not included.
> 
> From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.
> 
> At least, this is the law.  Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.
> 
> BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)
Click to expand...


Under the Constitution the 14th Amendment gives to all persons born in or naturalized in the United States the privilege of citizenship.  Before you waste time arguing the point, I accidentally argued it in court and won.  You're welcome to come to the house and read the case... and no it's not online because the U.S. government, the county Dept. of Human Services, a foreign government, nor the parents of the child in question appealed the decision.  

Kids born in US to undocumented are citizens

I'm well aware of your argument, but it is bogus.  IF your argument had been challenged three generations ago, it might have had some basis, but with *5 million plus 14th Amendment citizens*, and some of them being police officers, soldiers, scientists, and people with high level security clearances, the courts will never see it your way no matter how sincere you believe in your cause.

IF undocumented foreigners were not _subject to the jurisdiction_, ICE could never take them into custody because if you lack jurisdiction you cannot arrest someone and take them to court.  Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction.

It does not matter what the original intent of the Constitution is.  I'll bet you ain't bitching because you cannot own a fully automatic weapon in many states and NOBODY can legally convert their weapons any longer.  Original intent don't mean shit.  That's just a fact.  Once the courts have ruled, your *ONLY* remedy now would be a constitutional Amendment.


----------



## beautress

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


George Washington Carver fed a hungry nation by improving foods with science and hard work. Wilt Chamberlain redefined basketball and Michael Jordan refined it to poetry in motion. Nat King Cole's voice made people fall in love with each other. Harriet Tubman saved the lives of and freed 1,000 slaves before the Emanciapation Proclamation was even thought of. Quincy Jones earned 80 Grammy Award nominations and won 28 Grammies. He also worked an arrangement of "On the Street Where You Live" and arranged thousands of pieces of music for Hollywood, Broadway, and famous musicians and their bands, not to mention being a music hall of famer. Oprah Winfrey is a billionnaire thrice over. And Philip Emeagwali is the considered the father of the internet due to his innovative approach to speeding computers up for which he won the 1989 Gordon Bell Prize from the Institute of Electronics and Electrical Engineers. Martin Luther King gave America true brotherhood between with the yearning love in his sermon for good will between men entitled, "I have a dream."

Intelligence is like any other human attribute. It is not inherited but is seized by those who want to know more. And it crosses racial lines faster than wildfire when a man or woman has the burning desire to know secrets about how God's beautiful world works more than anybody else, whoever and whenever that is.


----------



## beautress

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legend in your own mind...too funny.
> I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍
Click to expand...

My dear Mr. Fleegle, you are getting yourself in way over your head. Just sayin'... Here's some specs that may help you see a little bit better:


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> VA pension is for being a veteran and being old. (over 65).
> Just "being poor" doesn't qualify.
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
Click to expand...


When you whine about who a total stranger praises from a distance, that proves that HE kicked YOUR ass......just like most do here on a regular basis.


You're got your hands full conversing with him, so leave me out of it.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

beautress said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legend in your own mind...too funny.
> I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My dear Mr. Fleegle, you are getting yourself in way over your head. Just sayin'... Here's some specs that may help you see a little bit better:
Click to expand...

Oh..i think I'm barely to my knees on this one....no challenge here...but thanx for the specs...very 21st century!


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legend in your own mind...too funny.
> I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍
Click to expand...




Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> An *unalienable* Right is above the law. When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights, your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right. It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_. In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.
> 
> 
> 
> Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights".  And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights.  Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.
> 
> *Citizenship*, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and *in turn is entitled to its protection*. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.
> 
> Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> *Human Rights*
> Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.
> 
> *Civil Rights*
> Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights *that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state*. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.​The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right.  I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *|* nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *| *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is absolute bullshit.  By the numbers
> 
> 1)  Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> 2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment
> 
> 3)  Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)
> 
> 4)  Civil rights are government created rights
> 
> What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw
> 
> See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From?  They are all man made law, NOT *unalienable* Rights
> 
> 5)  Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "_All *persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States; nor shall any state deprive *any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> A)  A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment *citizen.  *They get certain _privileges and immunities_
> 
> B)  Under the 14th Amendment EVERY *person* (as differentiated from a _citizen_) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.
> 
> So, every *person* is entitled to *government granted* Life, Liberty and Property and* citizens* get additional *privileges and immunities*
> 
> 6)  Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY *unalienable* Rights.  *The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights.  *The terminology of Right, Rights, or *unalienable* Right hes does not appear in the 14th Amendment
> 
> 7) * Unalienable* Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, *absolute*, God given, and above the law by the courts.  Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word *unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS*. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.
> 
> END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen.  Children of foreigners are not included.
> 
> From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.
> 
> At least, this is the law.  Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.
> 
> BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution the 14th Amendment gives to all persons born in or naturalized in the United States the privilege of citizenship.  Before you waste time arguing the point, I accidentally argued it in court and won.  You're welcome to come to the house and read the case... and no it's not online because the U.S. government, the county Dept. of Human Services, a foreign government, nor the parents of the child in question appealed the decision.
> 
> Kids born in US to undocumented are citizens
> 
> I'm well aware of your argument, but it is bogus.  IF your argument had been challenged three generations ago, it might have had some basis, but with *5 million plus 14th Amendment citizens*, and some of them being police officers, soldiers, scientists, and people with high level security clearances, the courts will never see it your way no matter how sincere you believe in your cause.
> 
> IF undocumented foreigners were not _subject to the jurisdiction_, ICE could never take them into custody because if you lack jurisdiction you cannot arrest someone and take them to court.  Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction.
> 
> It does not matter what the original intent of the Constitution is.  I'll bet you ain't bitching because you cannot own a fully automatic weapon in many states and NOBODY can legally convert their weapons any longer.  Original intent don't mean shit.  That's just a fact.  Once the courts have ruled, your *ONLY* remedy now would be a constitutional Amendment.
Click to expand...

I will just say that I just flat out disagree with you.  I don't care what some judge somewhere judged.  Any judgement giving citizenship to kids of illegal aliens, should be overruled and discarded.

Original intent means everything.  If it didn't, the Constitution would have no meaning.  Howard defined it no kids of foreigners.  That way in 1866.  That way now.  You see it your way.
  I see it mine.  Cool how these debate forums work.  We're lucky we have this freedom.


----------



## protectionist

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legend in your own mind...too funny.
> I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍
Click to expand...

My Quiz threads aren't "fantasy".  They're right here in USMB. Wanna take one, and find out how ignorant you are ?

So you call thousands of US military veterans "on the dole"

Lucky for you, they're not in the same room with you.  As for me, only question I might have is why am I even talking to you ?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> But..you DO have to be poor...and be a vet..and be over 65. All three....so indeed..you are financially indigent....and dependent on the charity of our govt.--so show your gratitude~
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you whine about who a total stranger praises from a distance, that proves that HE kicked YOUR ass......just like most do here on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> You're got your hands full conversing with him, so leave me out of it.
Click to expand...

When you keep blabbering at me, you're in it.  If you don't want to be, it's simple . Just 

Oh did I forget ?  Yeah, I kicked his ass, AND YOURS again, for the 200th time.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legend in your own mind...too funny.
> I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> An *unalienable* Right is above the law. When you lobbied against those Rights, the Right to keep and bear Arms became a privilege doled out by the government as opposed to a Right that was bestowed upon you by a Creator as presupposed by the Declaration of Independence. When you lobbied against *unalienable* Rights, your Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press... even your Right to your own Religion became subject to government approval. The 14th Amendment does not guarantee any Right. It protects _privileges and immunities_ and allows the government to take away any Right you have via _due process_. In other words, your Rights CAN BE ALIENED due to the 14th Amendment because that Amendment puts the government into the Rights granting business.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights".  And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights.  Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.
> 
> *Citizenship*, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and *in turn is entitled to its protection*. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.
> 
> Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> *Human Rights*
> Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.
> 
> *Civil Rights*
> Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights *that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state*. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.​The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right.  I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *|* nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *| *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is absolute bullshit.  By the numbers
> 
> 1)  Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> 2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment
> 
> 3)  Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)
> 
> 4)  Civil rights are government created rights
> 
> What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw
> 
> See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From?  They are all man made law, NOT *unalienable* Rights
> 
> 5)  Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "_All *persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States; nor shall any state deprive *any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> A)  A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment *citizen.  *They get certain _privileges and immunities_
> 
> B)  Under the 14th Amendment EVERY *person* (as differentiated from a _citizen_) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.
> 
> So, every *person* is entitled to *government granted* Life, Liberty and Property and* citizens* get additional *privileges and immunities*
> 
> 6)  Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY *unalienable* Rights.  *The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights.  *The terminology of Right, Rights, or *unalienable* Right hes does not appear in the 14th Amendment
> 
> 7) * Unalienable* Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, *absolute*, God given, and above the law by the courts.  Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word *unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS*. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.
> 
> END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen.  Children of foreigners are not included.
> 
> From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.
> 
> At least, this is the law.  Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.
> 
> BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution the 14th Amendment gives to all persons born in or naturalized in the United States the privilege of citizenship.  Before you waste time arguing the point, I accidentally argued it in court and won.  You're welcome to come to the house and read the case... and no it's not online because the U.S. government, the county Dept. of Human Services, a foreign government, nor the parents of the child in question appealed the decision.
> 
> Kids born in US to undocumented are citizens
> 
> I'm well aware of your argument, but it is bogus.  IF your argument had been challenged three generations ago, it might have had some basis, but with *5 million plus 14th Amendment citizens*, and some of them being police officers, soldiers, scientists, and people with high level security clearances, the courts will never see it your way no matter how sincere you believe in your cause.
> 
> IF undocumented foreigners were not _subject to the jurisdiction_, ICE could never take them into custody because if you lack jurisdiction you cannot arrest someone and take them to court.  Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction.
> 
> It does not matter what the original intent of the Constitution is.  I'll bet you ain't bitching because you cannot own a fully automatic weapon in many states and NOBODY can legally convert their weapons any longer.  Original intent don't mean shit.  That's just a fact.  Once the courts have ruled, your *ONLY* remedy now would be a constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will just say that I just flat out disagree with you.  I don't care what some judge somewhere judged.  Any judgement giving citizenship to kids of illegal aliens, should be overruled and discarded.
> 
> Original intent means everything.  If it didn't, the Constitution would have no meaning.  Howard defined it no kids of foreigners.  That way in 1866.  That way now.  You see it your way.
> I see it mine.  Cool how these debate forums work.  We're lucky we have this freedom.
Click to expand...


*YOU ARE NOT DISAGREEING WITH ME*.  Get that through your head.  My view is that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified to begin with, so I don't give a rip about it one way or another.  

*Part 2* is that* If* the people who wrote the Amendment meant for it to say something specific, it had to be done when they wrote the law

*Part 3* -  The courts get to interpret what the law means.  It is the way our system of jurisprudence works.  NOBODY can over-rule the courts.  Once the gavel falls in the United States Supreme Court, no popularity vote; no amount of outrage; no lying ass politician can change the bottom line.  You can petition the United States Supreme Court again - *which unconstitutional as HELL*, but both sides see the Constitution as a burden OR you can amend the Constitution.  That is it

*Part 4* -  I argue gun Rights based upon original intent.  The difference is, the *earliest courts* interpreted the Second Amendment consistent with original intent. * The earliest courts did not buy your argument relative to immigration.  *Consequently, your avenue of redress is to argue your position before the United States Supreme Court OR amend the Constitution

*Part 5* -  As a Christian I can only implore you that any change done via unholy means is destined to fail

*Part 6* -  Since what you want to be true is not the way you see it, your problem and differences are not with me.  As someone who worked in law (and I was even a Justice of the Peace once), politics and legal discourse are very different discussions.  Did it ever dawn on you that both the Ds and the Rs are allowing you to chase your tail so that nothing of substance ever gets done?

*Part 7* -  You do not look down the road with critical thinking skills, realizing that sometimes the same law that bites you in the ass is the same one that saves it.  You have never looked down the road to see what might happen if Congress every did skew the law in favor, in the manner you want to achieve the results.  Voltaire once remarked:

"_I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one."
_
In under ten paragraphs I have ended this dispute.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legend in your own mind...too funny.
> I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NewsVine_Mariyam said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not all rights are unalienable or Creator given rights, also known as "human rights".  And not all of the amendments of the U.S. Constitution prohibit interference only with those natural, Creator given human rights.  Citizenship is not a creator given natural human right.
> 
> *Citizenship*, relationship between an individual and a state to which the individual owes allegiance and *in turn is entitled to its protection*. Citizenship implies the status of freedom with accompanying responsibilities. Citizens have certain rights, duties, and responsibilities that are denied or only partially extended to aliens and other noncitizens residing in a country. In general, full political rights, including the right to vote and to hold public office, are predicated upon citizenship. The usual responsibilities of citizenship are allegiance, taxation, and military service.
> 
> Human rights arise simply by being a human being. Civil rights, on the other hand, arise only by virtue of a legal grant of that right, such as the rights imparted on American citizens by the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> *Human Rights*
> Human rights are generally thought of as the most fundamental rights. They include the right to life, education, protection from torture, free expression, and fair trial. Many of these rights bleed into civil rights, but they are considered to be necessities of the human existence. As a concept, human rights were conceived shortly after World War II, particularly in regard to the treatment of Jews and other groups by the Nazis. In 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, cementing their foundation in international law and policy.
> 
> *Civil Rights*
> Civil rights, on the other hand, are those rights *that one enjoys by virtue of citizenship in a particular nation or state*. In America, civil rights have the protection of the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions. Civil rights protect citizens from discrimination and grant certain freedoms, like free speech, due process, equal protection, the right against self-incrimination, and so forth. Civil rights can be thought of as the agreement between the nation, the state, and the individual citizens that they govern.​The rights we enjoy under the U.S. Constitution are predicated upon our citizenship for the most part however the right to be a U.S. citizen is not a Creator given right.  I'm sure Taney knew this when he ruled that people of African descent were not and could not be citizens which is why the 14th amendment became necessary
> 
> 14th Amendment
> 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; *|* nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; *| *nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is absolute bullshit.  By the numbers
> 
> 1)  Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> 2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment
> 
> 3)  Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)
> 
> 4)  Civil rights are government created rights
> 
> What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw
> 
> See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From?  They are all man made law, NOT *unalienable* Rights
> 
> 5)  Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "_All *persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States; nor shall any state deprive *any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> A)  A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment *citizen.  *They get certain _privileges and immunities_
> 
> B)  Under the 14th Amendment EVERY *person* (as differentiated from a _citizen_) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.
> 
> So, every *person* is entitled to *government granted* Life, Liberty and Property and* citizens* get additional *privileges and immunities*
> 
> 6)  Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY *unalienable* Rights.  *The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights.  *The terminology of Right, Rights, or *unalienable* Right hes does not appear in the 14th Amendment
> 
> 7) * Unalienable* Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, *absolute*, God given, and above the law by the courts.  Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word *unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS*. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.
> 
> END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen.  Children of foreigners are not included.
> 
> From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.
> 
> At least, this is the law.  Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.
> 
> BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution the 14th Amendment gives to all persons born in or naturalized in the United States the privilege of citizenship.  Before you waste time arguing the point, I accidentally argued it in court and won.  You're welcome to come to the house and read the case... and no it's not online because the U.S. government, the county Dept. of Human Services, a foreign government, nor the parents of the child in question appealed the decision.
> 
> Kids born in US to undocumented are citizens
> 
> I'm well aware of your argument, but it is bogus.  IF your argument had been challenged three generations ago, it might have had some basis, but with *5 million plus 14th Amendment citizens*, and some of them being police officers, soldiers, scientists, and people with high level security clearances, the courts will never see it your way no matter how sincere you believe in your cause.
> 
> IF undocumented foreigners were not _subject to the jurisdiction_, ICE could never take them into custody because if you lack jurisdiction you cannot arrest someone and take them to court.  Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction.
> 
> It does not matter what the original intent of the Constitution is.  I'll bet you ain't bitching because you cannot own a fully automatic weapon in many states and NOBODY can legally convert their weapons any longer.  Original intent don't mean shit.  That's just a fact.  Once the courts have ruled, your *ONLY* remedy now would be a constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will just say that I just flat out disagree with you.  I don't care what some judge somewhere judged.  Any judgement giving citizenship to kids of illegal aliens, should be overruled and discarded.
> 
> Original intent means everything.  If it didn't, the Constitution would have no meaning.  Howard defined it no kids of foreigners.  That way in 1866.  That way now.  You see it your way.
> I see it mine.  Cool how these debate forums work.  We're lucky we have this freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE NOT DISAGREEING WITH ME*.  Get that through your head.  My view is that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified to begin with, so I don't give a rip about it one way or another.
> 
> *Part 2* is that* If* the people who wrote the Amendment meant for it to say something specific, it had to be done when they wrote the law
> 
> *Part 3* -  The courts get to interpret what the law means.  It is the way our system of jurisprudence works.  NOBODY can over-rule the courts.  Once the gavel falls in the United States Supreme Court, no popularity vote; no amount of outrage; no lying ass politician can change the bottom line.  You can petition the United States Supreme Court again - *which unconstitutional as HELL*, but both sides see the Constitution as a burden OR you can amend the Constitution.  That is it
> 
> *Part 4* -  I argue gun Rights based upon original intent.  The difference is, the *earliest courts* interpreted the Second Amendment consistent with original intent. * The earliest courts did not buy your argument relative to immigration.  *Consequently, your avenue of redress is to argue your position before the United States Supreme Court OR amend the Constitution
> 
> *Part 5* -  As a Christian I can only implore you that any change done via unholy means is destined to fail
> 
> *Part 6* -  Since what you want to be true is not the way you see it, your problem and differences are not with me.  As someone who worked in law (and I was even a Justice of the Peace once), politics and legal discourse are very different discussions.  Did it ever dawn on you that both the Ds and the Rs are allowing you to chase your tail so that nothing of substance ever gets done?
> 
> *Part 7* -  You do not look down the road with critical thinking skills, realizing that sometimes the same law that bites you in the ass is the same one that saves it.  You have never looked down the road to see what might happen if Congress every did skew the law in favor, in the manner you want to achieve the results.  Voltaire once remarked:
> 
> "_I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one."
> _
> In under ten paragraphs I have ended this dispute.
Click to expand...

In Trump's first year after re-elected, birthright citizenship for kids of illegal aliens will be eliminated . We can come back and revisit this page then. November 2021.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

protectionist said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Legend in your own mind...too funny.
> I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your post is absolute bullshit.  By the numbers
> 
> 1)  Even in today's society, undocumented foreigners are entitled to constitutional "rights" pursuant to the 14th Amendment
> 
> Do undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights?
> 
> 2) By the above article, said "rights" are limited by the 14th Amendment
> 
> 3)  Citizenship only gives an individual additional privileges only available to actual citizens (i.e. the privilege of voting, receiving welfare, etc.)
> 
> 4)  Civil rights are government created rights
> 
> What Are Civil Rights? - FindLaw
> 
> See the section Where Do Civil Rights Come From?  They are all man made law, NOT *unalienable* Rights
> 
> 5)  Now, allow me to fix your interpretation by bolding what IS important in the 14th Amendment:
> 
> "_All *persons* born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the *privileges or immunities of citizens* of the United States; nor shall any state deprive *any person of life, liberty, or property,* without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_."
> 
> A)  A person born or naturalized in the U.S. is a 14th Amendment *citizen.  *They get certain _privileges and immunities_
> 
> B)  Under the 14th Amendment EVERY *person* (as differentiated from a _citizen_) is due Life, Liberty, and Property as long as their within the jurisdiction of the United States , subject to due process.
> 
> So, every *person* is entitled to *government granted* Life, Liberty and Property and* citizens* get additional *privileges and immunities*
> 
> 6)  Life, Liberty and Property were FORMERLY *unalienable* Rights.  *The 14th Amendment DOES NOT guarantee Rights.  *The terminology of Right, Rights, or *unalienable* Right hes does not appear in the 14th Amendment
> 
> 7) * Unalienable* Rights were codified into law by the Bill of Rights, then ruled natural, irrevocable, *absolute*, God given, and above the law by the courts.  Then they were nullified by the wording of the 14th Amendment, limited by the government and eventually phased out and the word *unalienable removed from the most authoritative LEGAL DICTIONARIES USED AS AUTHORITY IN THE COURTS*. It no longer exists in the legal lexicon.
> 
> END OF STORY UNLESS YOU WANT THE HOLDINGS OF THE COURTS IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen.  Children of foreigners are not included.
> 
> From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.
> 
> At least, this is the law.  Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.
> 
> BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution the 14th Amendment gives to all persons born in or naturalized in the United States the privilege of citizenship.  Before you waste time arguing the point, I accidentally argued it in court and won.  You're welcome to come to the house and read the case... and no it's not online because the U.S. government, the county Dept. of Human Services, a foreign government, nor the parents of the child in question appealed the decision.
> 
> Kids born in US to undocumented are citizens
> 
> I'm well aware of your argument, but it is bogus.  IF your argument had been challenged three generations ago, it might have had some basis, but with *5 million plus 14th Amendment citizens*, and some of them being police officers, soldiers, scientists, and people with high level security clearances, the courts will never see it your way no matter how sincere you believe in your cause.
> 
> IF undocumented foreigners were not _subject to the jurisdiction_, ICE could never take them into custody because if you lack jurisdiction you cannot arrest someone and take them to court.  Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction.
> 
> It does not matter what the original intent of the Constitution is.  I'll bet you ain't bitching because you cannot own a fully automatic weapon in many states and NOBODY can legally convert their weapons any longer.  Original intent don't mean shit.  That's just a fact.  Once the courts have ruled, your *ONLY* remedy now would be a constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will just say that I just flat out disagree with you.  I don't care what some judge somewhere judged.  Any judgement giving citizenship to kids of illegal aliens, should be overruled and discarded.
> 
> Original intent means everything.  If it didn't, the Constitution would have no meaning.  Howard defined it no kids of foreigners.  That way in 1866.  That way now.  You see it your way.
> I see it mine.  Cool how these debate forums work.  We're lucky we have this freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE NOT DISAGREEING WITH ME*.  Get that through your head.  My view is that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified to begin with, so I don't give a rip about it one way or another.
> 
> *Part 2* is that* If* the people who wrote the Amendment meant for it to say something specific, it had to be done when they wrote the law
> 
> *Part 3* -  The courts get to interpret what the law means.  It is the way our system of jurisprudence works.  NOBODY can over-rule the courts.  Once the gavel falls in the United States Supreme Court, no popularity vote; no amount of outrage; no lying ass politician can change the bottom line.  You can petition the United States Supreme Court again - *which unconstitutional as HELL*, but both sides see the Constitution as a burden OR you can amend the Constitution.  That is it
> 
> *Part 4* -  I argue gun Rights based upon original intent.  The difference is, the *earliest courts* interpreted the Second Amendment consistent with original intent. * The earliest courts did not buy your argument relative to immigration.  *Consequently, your avenue of redress is to argue your position before the United States Supreme Court OR amend the Constitution
> 
> *Part 5* -  As a Christian I can only implore you that any change done via unholy means is destined to fail
> 
> *Part 6* -  Since what you want to be true is not the way you see it, your problem and differences are not with me.  As someone who worked in law (and I was even a Justice of the Peace once), politics and legal discourse are very different discussions.  Did it ever dawn on you that both the Ds and the Rs are allowing you to chase your tail so that nothing of substance ever gets done?
> 
> *Part 7* -  You do not look down the road with critical thinking skills, realizing that sometimes the same law that bites you in the ass is the same one that saves it.  You have never looked down the road to see what might happen if Congress every did skew the law in favor, in the manner you want to achieve the results.  Voltaire once remarked:
> 
> "_I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one."
> _
> In under ten paragraphs I have ended this dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Trump's first year after re-elected, birthright citizenship for kids of illegal aliens will be eliminated . We can come back and revisit this page then. November 2021.
Click to expand...



If it goes to court and the United States Supreme Court hears the case, I will expect you to man up and then pay attention the next time I tell you how the legal system works.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> Legend in your own mind...too funny.
> I guess an active fantasy life is important...when you're on the dole‍
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> But not every person born in the US is automatically a citizen.  Children of foreigners are not included.
> 
> From the 1866 words of Sen. Jacob Howard, author of the 14th amendment.
> 
> At least, this is the law.  Corruption of it and enforcement is another matter.
> 
> BTW - Howard was also the co-author of the 13th amendment (other being Abraham Lincoln)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Under the Constitution the 14th Amendment gives to all persons born in or naturalized in the United States the privilege of citizenship.  Before you waste time arguing the point, I accidentally argued it in court and won.  You're welcome to come to the house and read the case... and no it's not online because the U.S. government, the county Dept. of Human Services, a foreign government, nor the parents of the child in question appealed the decision.
> 
> Kids born in US to undocumented are citizens
> 
> I'm well aware of your argument, but it is bogus.  IF your argument had been challenged three generations ago, it might have had some basis, but with *5 million plus 14th Amendment citizens*, and some of them being police officers, soldiers, scientists, and people with high level security clearances, the courts will never see it your way no matter how sincere you believe in your cause.
> 
> IF undocumented foreigners were not _subject to the jurisdiction_, ICE could never take them into custody because if you lack jurisdiction you cannot arrest someone and take them to court.  Lack of jurisdiction is lack of jurisdiction.
> 
> It does not matter what the original intent of the Constitution is.  I'll bet you ain't bitching because you cannot own a fully automatic weapon in many states and NOBODY can legally convert their weapons any longer.  Original intent don't mean shit.  That's just a fact.  Once the courts have ruled, your *ONLY* remedy now would be a constitutional Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will just say that I just flat out disagree with you.  I don't care what some judge somewhere judged.  Any judgement giving citizenship to kids of illegal aliens, should be overruled and discarded.
> 
> Original intent means everything.  If it didn't, the Constitution would have no meaning.  Howard defined it no kids of foreigners.  That way in 1866.  That way now.  You see it your way.
> I see it mine.  Cool how these debate forums work.  We're lucky we have this freedom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YOU ARE NOT DISAGREEING WITH ME*.  Get that through your head.  My view is that the 14th Amendment was never legally ratified to begin with, so I don't give a rip about it one way or another.
> 
> *Part 2* is that* If* the people who wrote the Amendment meant for it to say something specific, it had to be done when they wrote the law
> 
> *Part 3* -  The courts get to interpret what the law means.  It is the way our system of jurisprudence works.  NOBODY can over-rule the courts.  Once the gavel falls in the United States Supreme Court, no popularity vote; no amount of outrage; no lying ass politician can change the bottom line.  You can petition the United States Supreme Court again - *which unconstitutional as HELL*, but both sides see the Constitution as a burden OR you can amend the Constitution.  That is it
> 
> *Part 4* -  I argue gun Rights based upon original intent.  The difference is, the *earliest courts* interpreted the Second Amendment consistent with original intent. * The earliest courts did not buy your argument relative to immigration.  *Consequently, your avenue of redress is to argue your position before the United States Supreme Court OR amend the Constitution
> 
> *Part 5* -  As a Christian I can only implore you that any change done via unholy means is destined to fail
> 
> *Part 6* -  Since what you want to be true is not the way you see it, your problem and differences are not with me.  As someone who worked in law (and I was even a Justice of the Peace once), politics and legal discourse are very different discussions.  Did it ever dawn on you that both the Ds and the Rs are allowing you to chase your tail so that nothing of substance ever gets done?
> 
> *Part 7* -  You do not look down the road with critical thinking skills, realizing that sometimes the same law that bites you in the ass is the same one that saves it.  You have never looked down the road to see what might happen if Congress every did skew the law in favor, in the manner you want to achieve the results.  Voltaire once remarked:
> 
> "_I was never ruined but twice: once when I lost a lawsuit, and once when I won one."
> _
> In under ten paragraphs I have ended this dispute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Trump's first year after re-elected, birthright citizenship for kids of illegal aliens will be eliminated . We can come back and revisit this page then. November 2021.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If it goes to court and the United States Supreme Court hears the case, I will expect you to man up and then pay attention the next time I tell you how the legal system works.
Click to expand...

November 2021.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Vets receiving VA pensions don't receive "charity" . Charity is typically something that goes to people who need help, but haven't done anything to earn it.
> 
> In contrast, veterans HAVE a great deal they earn, whatever they get relating to vet status.  And what they have done is to protect your hide.  So the next time you feel like getting mouthy again, you can "show your gratitude"
> 
> PS- be careful that you don't run afoul of Florida (where I reside) law.  Verbal abuse of any kind against a senior citizen is a felony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you whine about who a total stranger praises from a distance, that proves that HE kicked YOUR ass......just like most do here on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> You're got your hands full conversing with him, so leave me out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you keep blabbering at me, you're in it.  If you don't want to be, it's simple . Just
> 
> Oh did I forget ?  Yeah, I kicked his ass, AND YOURS again, for the 200th time.
Click to expand...


I wasn't talking to you grandma....I thanked HIS post, and that triggered your crazy self.

And he mopped the floor of this sewer with your carcass, just like too many to count here.


You need to turn off the mental wards computer and  STFU.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do tell...lol..been a while since you pulled that card! Not in Florida..and odds on I'm older than you.
> 
> I served 5 years in the Navy..during and after Vietnam. As a vet I think you are a disgrace...using your service as a commodity..to make up for your ineptitude regarding your finances and life in general.
> 
> You suck on the public teat...you should show your gratitude to every person of color...whose tax dollars go to your upkeep.
> 
> To sum it up...you're a loser and you know it...thus the bitterness you unleash on others to mask your ineptitude.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you whine about who a total stranger praises from a distance, that proves that HE kicked YOUR ass......just like most do here on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> You're got your hands full conversing with him, so leave me out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you keep blabbering at me, you're in it.  If you don't want to be, it's simple . Just
> 
> Oh did I forget ?  Yeah, I kicked his ass, AND YOURS again, for the 200th time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you grandma....I thanked HIS post, and that triggered your crazy self.
> 
> And he mopped the floor of this sewer with your carcass, just like too many to count here.
> 
> 
> You need to turn off the mental wards computer and  STFU.
Click to expand...

Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?

So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.

And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.

Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.  

And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)

And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)

And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  1 don't clean houses or cut lawns
> I teach music.
> 2. There is no rent control in Florida.
> 3.  You got something against Social Security and VA pensions ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.
> 
> You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago.
> 
> Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you don't think I am skilled in mechanical inspection or teaching guitar, violin, and mandolin, I could give you a free lesson right here, right now.
> 
> And if I was "broke", I wouldn't own 4 stringed instruments worth about $2,000, but I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats all? I have a Gibson ES335 that alone is worth over 3500.00. As well as a U.S. made 1962 Seafoam Green Fender Strat that I've been offered 2300.00 for,
> 
> I won't even mention the two acoustic guitars that I also own.
> 
> 
> You must own some chezp Asian made knockoffs.
> 
> What are your amplifiers and effects?
Click to expand...

And with all that, now if you could just learn how to put 3 chords together.  Well, they do make nice room ornaments.

I did offer to give you a free lesson.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you whine about who a total stranger praises from a distance, that proves that HE kicked YOUR ass......just like most do here on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> You're got your hands full conversing with him, so leave me out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you keep blabbering at me, you're in it.  If you don't want to be, it's simple . Just
> 
> Oh did I forget ?  Yeah, I kicked his ass, AND YOURS again, for the 200th time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you grandma....I thanked HIS post, and that triggered your crazy self.
> 
> And he mopped the floor of this sewer with your carcass, just like too many to count here.
> 
> 
> You need to turn off the mental wards computer and  STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?
> 
> So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.
> 
> And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.
> 
> Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.
> 
> And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)
> 
> And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)
> 
> And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.
Click to expand...



It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?

I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!

That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.

Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.

I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".

Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:

Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.

So now here you are stating that there are
"10 MILLION Black republicans"?!

Where did you read that?

There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.

In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.

Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.

That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.

Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!

Do you know what a calculator is?

You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.

STFU.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I think you would be well suited to be a servant. Stump stupid.
> 
> 2. And I have never benefitted from AA.
> 
> 3. Of course I have nothing against VA pensions or social security...for people who can do no better.
> 
> 
> However, most people who have accomplished what you claim to would not need either. Your alleged accomplishments and what you claim to live on, do not make sense.
> 
> 
> 
> They make sense to intelligent people.  Ever hear the word "Retired" ?  Or "Semi-retired" ?
> 
> BTW- .I forgot to mention that in addition to owning my own business, I also had 2 other skilled occupations.  I played guitar in a rock band for 9 years, and I also have a skilled trade in QC mechanical inspection, having worked in machine shops and high-tech companies.
> 
> And Ms Certifications might be interested to know that I have certs from 2 of the biggest high tech companies in the world.
> 
> Know more, judge less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! Next you will be stating that you were once the president of the country.
> 
> You're still wacko from those psychedelic drugs that you took from decades ago.
> 
> Be careful. Newsvine will  embarrass your broke ass for claiming to be certified in her field.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And if you don't think I am skilled in mechanical inspection or teaching guitar, violin, and mandolin, I could give you a free lesson right here, right now.
> 
> And if I was "broke", I wouldn't own 4 stringed instruments worth about $2,000, but I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats all? I have a Gibson ES335 that alone is worth over 3500.00. As well as a U.S. made 1962 Seafoam Green Fender Strat that I've been offered 2300.00 for,
> 
> I won't even mention the two acoustic guitars that I also own.
> 
> 
> You must own some chezp Asian made knockoffs.
> 
> What are your amplifiers and effects?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And with all that, now if you could just learn how to put 3 chords together.  Well, they do make nice room ornaments.
> 
> I did offer to give you a free lesson.
Click to expand...


You've already provided a "lesson"...you've defined what a bitter old fool sounds like by what they say.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you praise a jerk whose ass I already kicked, you are then a double jerk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you whine about who a total stranger praises from a distance, that proves that HE kicked YOUR ass......just like most do here on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> You're got your hands full conversing with him, so leave me out of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you keep blabbering at me, you're in it.  If you don't want to be, it's simple . Just
> 
> Oh did I forget ?  Yeah, I kicked his ass, AND YOURS again, for the 200th time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you grandma....I thanked HIS post, and that triggered your crazy self.
> 
> And he mopped the floor of this sewer with your carcass, just like too many to count here.
> 
> 
> You need to turn off the mental wards computer and  STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?
> 
> So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.
> 
> And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.
> 
> Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.
> 
> And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)
> 
> And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)
> 
> And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
Click to expand...

 The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).

Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)

New polls show black support for Trump surging

Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"

Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.

Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.

But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.

New polls show black support for Trump surging


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you whine about who a total stranger praises from a distance, that proves that HE kicked YOUR ass......just like most do here on a regular basis.
> 
> 
> You're got your hands full conversing with him, so leave me out of it.
> 
> 
> 
> When you keep blabbering at me, you're in it.  If you don't want to be, it's simple . Just
> 
> Oh did I forget ?  Yeah, I kicked his ass, AND YOURS again, for the 200th time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you grandma....I thanked HIS post, and that triggered your crazy self.
> 
> And he mopped the floor of this sewer with your carcass, just like too many to count here.
> 
> 
> You need to turn off the mental wards computer and  STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?
> 
> So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.
> 
> And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.
> 
> Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.
> 
> And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)
> 
> And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)
> 
> And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
Click to expand...


Bullshit. 

You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans. 

Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.

You got called out, and now, you look stupid.

Go away.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you keep blabbering at me, you're in it.  If you don't want to be, it's simple . Just
> 
> Oh did I forget ?  Yeah, I kicked his ass, AND YOURS again, for the 200th time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you grandma....I thanked HIS post, and that triggered your crazy self.
> 
> And he mopped the floor of this sewer with your carcass, just like too many to count here.
> 
> 
> You need to turn off the mental wards computer and  STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?
> 
> So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.
> 
> And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.
> 
> Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.
> 
> And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)
> 
> And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)
> 
> And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
Click to expand...

Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.


----------



## MaryL

White supremacy died in the 70s.  When I experienced this little  epiphany. Anecdotally I know. Still,  it is  true. A little old  white lady that used to put put out lemonade and cookies  for Denver RTD customers & drivers was brutally beaten to death by some black kids just recently welcomed into the neighborhood.  Diversity my ass. Nobody wants this shit.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you grandma....I thanked HIS post, and that triggered your crazy self.
> 
> And he mopped the floor of this sewer with your carcass, just like too many to count here.
> 
> 
> You need to turn off the mental wards computer and  STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?
> 
> So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.
> 
> And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.
> 
> Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.
> 
> And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)
> 
> And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)
> 
> And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't talking to you grandma....I thanked HIS post, and that triggered your crazy self.
> 
> And he mopped the floor of this sewer with your carcass, just like too many to count here.
> 
> 
> You need to turn off the mental wards computer and  STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?
> 
> So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.
> 
> And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.
> 
> Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.
> 
> And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)
> 
> And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)
> 
> And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
Click to expand...


Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.

Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."

What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".

Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm


Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action

 Re read what you actually stated below.

"*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"

Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*


----------



## DGS49

So here's the thing. Statistically speaking and biologically speaking, there ARE differences between and among the different races.  That is to say, if you took a thousand randomly selected European-white males and subjected them to a number of physical and mental examinations and tests, then you took a similar number of black African males, and Asian males and subjected them to the same examinations and tests, you would find clear patterns of differences, capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses.

As one silly example, the Africans will have longer arms and legs relative to height and mass than either the Caucasians or Asians.  As a former manager of a men's clothing store I know that a 6' tall white man will have an "inseam" measurement of about 31" while a typical Black man of the same height will have an inseam closer to 34".  A typical White man (non-obese) with a 42" chest will have a 36" waist, while a Black man with a 42" chest will have a waist of 32-34".

Those who are paying attention know that the average IQ of these thousand White men will be around 100, while the average IQ among the Asians will be 115 and the African Blacks will be below 85.  But this has nothing to do with the individuals within the groups.  There will be individual Black men who have IQ's higher than individual Asian Men.  So nobody among the 3,000 has any reason or justification to say, "We are smarter than..." or "Y'all are dumber than..."  There is no WE; it is only individuals.

But there are many circumstances where the "we" is relevant.

If I am running a highly-selective basketball camp, where people with longer arms and legs will have a distinct advantage, there will be very few Asians, not so many Whites, and a whole lot of people of black African descent in that camp.  If I'm running a highly-selective academic program, the Asians are going to be over-represented and the black Africans are going to be under-represented, relative to their portion of the overall population.  And racial animus has nothing to do with it.

If I am looking at the academics of a "Big City" school district, there will be an "Achievement Gap," between the Blacks and the "whites" & Asians (& Ashkenazi jews).  And it won't be because of racial discrimination; *it will be because of academic merit*, which is entirely appropriate.  And no amount of money thrown at the system is going to result in those academics losing their Achievement Gap.

In pointing out this academic/intellectual difference, one runs the risk of being called a White Supremacist, and the Poverty Pimps do just that any time the issue is discussed rationally.  The best that can be done is to ensure that every individual in the population in question has an equal opportunity to participate in the most beneficial programs, without regard to race (etc).


----------



## protectionist

DGS49 said:


> So here's the thing. Statistically speaking and biologically speaking, there ARE differences between and among the different races.  That is to say, if you took a thousand randomly selected European-white males and subjected them to a number of physical and mental examinations and tests, then you took a similar number of black African males, and Asian males and subjected them to the same examinations and tests, you would find clear patterns of differences, capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses.
> 
> As one silly example, the Africans will have longer arms and legs relative to height and mass than either the Caucasians or Asians.  As a former manager of a men's clothing store I know that a 6' tall white man will have an "inseam" measurement of about 31" while a typical Black man of the same height will have an inseam closer to 34".  A typical White man (non-obese) with a 42" chest will have a 36" waist, while a Black man with a 42" chest will have a waist of 32-34".
> 
> Those who are paying attention know that the average IQ of these thousand White men will be around 100, while the average IQ among the Asians will be 115 and the African Blacks will be below 85.  But this has nothing to do with the individuals within the groups.  There will be individual Black men who have IQ's higher than individual Asian Men.  So nobody among the 3,000 has any reason or justification to say, "We are smarter than..." or "Y'all are dumber than..."  There is no WE; it is only individuals.
> 
> But there are many circumstances where the "we" is relevant.
> 
> If I am running a highly-selective basketball camp, where people with longer arms and legs will have a distinct advantage, there will be very few Asians, not so many Whites, and a whole lot of people of black African descent in that camp.  If I'm running a highly-selective academic program, the Asians are going to be over-represented and the black Africans are going to be under-represented, relative to their portion of the overall population.  And racial animus has nothing to do with it.
> 
> If I am looking at the academics of a "Big City" school district, there will be an "Achievement Gap," between the Blacks and the "whites" & Asians (& Ashkenazi jews).  And it won't be because of racial discrimination; *it will be because of academic merit*, which is entirely appropriate.  And no amount of money thrown at the system is going to result in those academics losing their Achievement Gap.
> 
> In pointing out this academic/intellectual difference, one runs the risk of being called a White Supremacist, and the Poverty Pimps do just that any time the issue is discussed rationally.  The best that can be done is to ensure that every individual in the population in question has an equal opportunity to participate in the most beneficial programs, without regard to race (etc).


And affirmative action is directly contrary to that admirable goal.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?
> 
> So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.
> 
> And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.
> 
> Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.
> 
> And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)
> 
> And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)
> 
> And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ha ha.  You make a habit of making a fool out of yourself.  Oh, you weren't talking to me, huh ?  So when you used some form of the word "you", that wasn't directed at me, right ?
> 
> So then when you said " HE kicked YOUR ass....", you were talking to Evil boy, and telling him how I kicked his ass.  Well, that was not necessary.  He already knows that.
> 
> And you already know the times when I kicked your ass, like just a few days ago, when you claimed to be a guitar player, and when I gave you  the most simplistic of questions about guitar playing, you failed to answer them correctly.
> 
> Maybe you and Evil could form a band where you play bongos and he plays the tambourine.
> 
> And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)
> 
> And then there was your robot reliance on statistics (liberal sources of course), and you couldn't envision proof being going to a VA hospital and observing firsthand the 90% of minority employees there (obviously AA)
> 
> And there was your blind white women in AA programmed talking point, you and IM2 keep blabbering, when you know it's BS.  For your 50th correction on that - NO, white women are not the top beneficiaries of AA.  ALL white women are victims of it, either by being discriminated against for being white, and/or because their white male husbands or fathers are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
Click to expand...

So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"

No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc

Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.

From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?

Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.

The correct word is MILLIONS.

Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
"ludicrous" overconfidence.

You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.


----------



## protectionist

How about affirmative action based on economic class/need (instead of race) ?  Even Ward Connerly was cool with that.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly,  "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> A 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be non other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, that means that it will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part.
> 
> 
> Don't you ever tire of making up nonsense?
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward,  It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
Click to expand...


----------



## IM2

MaryL said:


> White supremacy died in the 70s.  When I experienced this little  epiphany. Anecdotally I know. Still,  it is  true. A little old  white lady that used to put put out lemonade and cookies  for Denver RTD customers & drivers was brutally beaten to death by some black kids just recently welcomed into the neighborhood.  Diversity my ass. Nobody wants this shit.


No it didn't. Blacks have been the leading victims of racially motivated hate crimes for years. Stop lying to yourself.


----------



## IM2

DGS49 said:


> So here's the thing. Statistically speaking and biologically speaking, there ARE differences between and among the different races.  That is to say, if you took a thousand randomly selected European-white males and subjected them to a number of physical and mental examinations and tests, then you took a similar number of black African males, and Asian males and subjected them to the same examinations and tests, you would find clear patterns of differences, capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses.
> 
> As one silly example, the Africans will have longer arms and legs relative to height and mass than either the Caucasians or Asians.  As a former manager of a men's clothing store I know that a 6' tall white man will have an "inseam" measurement of about 31" while a typical Black man of the same height will have an inseam closer to 34".  A typical White man (non-obese) with a 42" chest will have a 36" waist, while a Black man with a 42" chest will have a waist of 32-34".
> 
> Those who are paying attention know that the average IQ of these thousand White men will be around 100, while the average IQ among the Asians will be 115 and the African Blacks will be below 85.  But this has nothing to do with the individuals within the groups.  There will be individual Black men who have IQ's higher than individual Asian Men.  So nobody among the 3,000 has any reason or justification to say, "We are smarter than..." or "Y'all are dumber than..."  There is no WE; it is only individuals.
> 
> But there are many circumstances where the "we" is relevant.
> 
> If I am running a highly-selective basketball camp, where people with longer arms and legs will have a distinct advantage, there will be very few Asians, not so many Whites, and a whole lot of people of black African descent in that camp.  If I'm running a highly-selective academic program, the Asians are going to be over-represented and the black Africans are going to be under-represented, relative to their portion of the overall population.  And racial animus has nothing to do with it.
> 
> If I am looking at the academics of a "Big City" school district, there will be an "Achievement Gap," between the Blacks and the "whites" & Asians (& Ashkenazi jews).  And it won't be because of racial discrimination; *it will be because of academic merit*, which is entirely appropriate.  And no amount of money thrown at the system is going to result in those academics losing their Achievement Gap.
> 
> In pointing out this academic/intellectual difference, one runs the risk of being called a White Supremacist, and the Poverty Pimps do just that any time the issue is discussed rationally.  The best that can be done is to ensure that every individual in the population in question has an equal opportunity to participate in the most beneficial programs, without regard to race (etc).



Nothing whites have achieved was done based on merit. White racists choose to ignore what was done and you will be shown it very soon.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It obviously doesn't take much to make you go off the rails, does it Grandma?
> 
> I complimented another posters response to you, and you turned into a 70+ year old "Chucky Doll".,,,,ROFLMAO!
> 
> That only proves that you're just a cyber dog on a leash, and all I have to do is yank it.
> 
> Every single one of your  incoherent rants above have been proven to be either figments of your delusions or your imagination or both, and it is already all on display in the thread history.
> 
> I don't need to repeat myself.....but you doing so over and over  just proves that you aren't "all there".
> 
> Lastly, for entertainment sake, here is JUST ONE example of your lunacy: from your post above:
> 
> Regarding "Black Republicans", yes I did state that your numbers, which you always pull out of thin air, were a stretch.
> 
> So now here you are stating that there are
> "10 MILLION Black republicans"?!
> 
> Where did you read that?
> 
> There are a TOTAL of approximately 40 million black people in the ENTIRE country! By the time you adjust for voting age, that number becomes a lot less.
> 
> In the 2016 election it was estimated that there were approximately 142 million TOTAL  voters.
> 
> Of that number, it was estimated that about 8% of them were black.
> 
> That means that around 11 MILLION  black voters probably voted in 2016.
> 
> Applying your logic, of the black voters that are out there, nearly ALL are Republicans?!
> 
> Do you know what a calculator is?
> 
> You are as dumb as a petrified  stone.
> 
> STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
Click to expand...



ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.

"Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?

There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".

Even a dunce like you should know that.


Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
"stretch numbers", yet again.

As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.

Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.

Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.

Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.

16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.

Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.

It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.

They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> DGS49 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So here's the thing. Statistically speaking and biologically speaking, there ARE differences between and among the different races.  That is to say, if you took a thousand randomly selected European-white males and subjected them to a number of physical and mental examinations and tests, then you took a similar number of black African males, and Asian males and subjected them to the same examinations and tests, you would find clear patterns of differences, capabilities, strengths, and weaknesses.
> 
> As one silly example, the Africans will have longer arms and legs relative to height and mass than either the Caucasians or Asians.  As a former manager of a men's clothing store I know that a 6' tall white man will have an "inseam" measurement of about 31" while a typical Black man of the same height will have an inseam closer to 34".  A typical White man (non-obese) with a 42" chest will have a 36" waist, while a Black man with a 42" chest will have a waist of 32-34".
> 
> Those who are paying attention know that the average IQ of these thousand White men will be around 100, while the average IQ among the Asians will be 115 and the African Blacks will be below 85.  But this has nothing to do with the individuals within the groups.  There will be individual Black men who have IQ's higher than individual Asian Men.  So nobody among the 3,000 has any reason or justification to say, "We are smarter than..." or "Y'all are dumber than..."  There is no WE; it is only individuals.
> 
> But there are many circumstances where the "we" is relevant.
> 
> If I am running a highly-selective basketball camp, where people with longer arms and legs will have a distinct advantage, there will be very few Asians, not so many Whites, and a whole lot of people of black African descent in that camp.  If I'm running a highly-selective academic program, the Asians are going to be over-represented and the black Africans are going to be under-represented, relative to their portion of the overall population.  And racial animus has nothing to do with it.
> 
> If I am looking at the academics of a "Big City" school district, there will be an "Achievement Gap," between the Blacks and the "whites" & Asians (& Ashkenazi jews).  And it won't be because of racial discrimination; *it will be because of academic merit*, which is entirely appropriate.  And no amount of money thrown at the system is going to result in those academics losing their Achievement Gap.
> 
> In pointing out this academic/intellectual difference, one runs the risk of being called a White Supremacist, and the Poverty Pimps do just that any time the issue is discussed rationally.  The best that can be done is to ensure that every individual in the population in question has an equal opportunity to participate in the most beneficial programs, without regard to race (etc).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing whites have achieved was done based on merit. White racists choose to ignore what was done and you will be shown it very soon.
Click to expand...

I hope you are right.


----------



## MaryL

IM2 said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> White supremacy died in the 70s.  When I experienced this little  epiphany. Anecdotally I know. Still,  it is  true. A little old  white lady that used to put put out lemonade and cookies  for Denver RTD customers & drivers was brutally beaten to death by some black kids just recently welcomed into the neighborhood.  Diversity my ass. Nobody wants this shit.
> 
> 
> 
> No it didn't. Blacks have been the leading victims of racially motivated hate crimes for years. Stop lying to yourself.
Click to expand...

Hate crimes being a rather new concept in law, and subjective. And rather tone deaf to the entire racial  spectrum. So that's not conclusive. The overall high black crime rate, that's  substantial.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 10 million figure was meant to be total black voters.  This however was a slight inconsequential error, that does not change anything about your stupid "stretch" comment (which error you have now compounded by repeating it).
> 
> Of 11 million black voters about 1/3 are black Republicans, according to 3 reliable polls done recently.  Unlike Gallup, Politifact, CNN, and MSM polls, these 3 polls get responded to by Republicans (of all races)
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Just to show how stupid your twice stated "stretch" remarks are, even the faulty 10% Gallup estimate, would total over a million black Republicans, while you thought calling it thousands was too much (a "stretch").  You even said my "thousands" number was "embellishing", and was "ludicrous"
> 
> Maybe after this you'll slow down, and choose your words more carefully.  And don't bother trying to spin this.  The egg is on your face, and whole body, and nobody is going to be snowed by any deflection or sugar-coating.
> 
> Blabber away if you like, but all these gaffes of yours will be here for years for everyone to see, whenever they need a good laugh.
> 
> But take heart from one thing.  At least your posts are just dumb. They aren't really evil, like that other clown.  At least you're not demeaning 67 million Americans who receive Social Security + another 10 million receiving VA benefit$.
> 
> New polls show black support for Trump surging
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
Click to expand...

Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.

I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.

I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.

There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.

When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.

  If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.

No crime in displaying stupidity.  

It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.


----------



## SaxxyBlues

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


 deny not denie


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> You were referring to what you were trying to pass off as black Republicans.
> 
> Re read your own post to refresh your feeble memory.
> 
> You got called out, and now, you look stupid.
> 
> Go away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
Click to expand...


All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.

Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.

Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.

Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.

That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.

Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.


As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking

If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.

If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone reading my last post (including link) knows YOU are the one looking stupid, Mr "stretch".  I need not say another word.  Case dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
Click to expand...

Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.

Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.

"Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.

When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.

Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.


----------



## Dalia

IM2 said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> Whites aren't any of those things. Take this racist bullshit back to stormfront.
Click to expand...

Listen, being proud to be white is not being racist it's just better to be.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good. You need to dismiss yourself, you pathological, lying nutcase. Anyone who read your posts in this thread can see how you make statements, then claim you meant something else.
> 
> Like the one below, where you claim you you were trying to say that there are "10 million black registered voters", when you actually stated that "there are 10 million black Republicans."
> 
> What  I said was that "it was a stretch to state  that there were "thousands of black Republicans who openly oppose Affirmative Action".
> 
> Even two of the most respected and visible black Republicans, Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell,  believe that AA is necessary.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAIegQIBRAI&usg=AOvVaw3XsjHsVh4RS-hEI68wDzdm
> 
> 
> Rice Weighs In On Affirmative Action
> 
> Re read what you actually stated below.
> 
> "*And then there was your moronic criticism of my "Thousands of black Republicans" statement, and you stupidly called it a "stretch" (when there's more than 10 million of them)"
> 
> Now. STFU, because this case is definitely dismissed, and you look stupid as usual.*
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
Click to expand...


I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.

I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.

Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe

But let's digress back to your "math".

You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.

Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.

 Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you want to throw some names around, huh ? OK.  I'll play that game with you.   I see you had to dig well into that past coming up with prominent blacks favoring AA. 17 years ago for Powell.  Bush administration for Rice, and her support is minimal.  Does not include quotas.  Here are some of her own words - "race neutral policies are preferable"
> 
> No difficulty in finding prominent blacks/minorities against AA - Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Neomi Rao, etc
> 
> Getting back to the numbers.  There were 42 million US blacks counted by the 2010 census. 5 million more than 2000.  Going by that yardstick of increase, this years census should produce another 5 million, to a total of 47 million blacks.
> 
> From the cogent polls showing 34% of blacks being Republicans, this gives us 16 million black Republicans.  So, for there to not be "thousands" (2,000+) of black Republicans opposed to AA (as you absurdly continue to claim), then 99.9987% of the 16 million would have to not be opposed to AA.  You think so ?
> 
> Well, obviously, that's not the case, and from having spoken to and heard from hundreds of Black Republicans over the years, and knowing about 90%of them DO OPPOSE AA, I can easily deduce that the word "thousands" would indeed be inappropriate.
> 
> The correct word is MILLIONS.
> 
> Hard as you may try to save face here, the numbers are massively against you
> The only "ludicrous/stretch" here was your waaaay off estimation, and your
> "ludicrous" overconfidence.
> 
> You may now quit USMB in total disgrace, and go home, and take up basketweaving, staying as far away from a computer as you can get.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
Click to expand...

Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. Making yourself look like an idiot as usual I see.
> 
> "Cogent polls show blacks being 34% Republican"?
> 
> There was a recent bullahit poll by Rasmussen that reported 34% of blacks APPROVE of Trumps performance, even though that particular poll is known for being GOP friendly, "approval rating" is not the same as "party loyalty".
> 
> Even a dunce like you should know that.
> 
> 
> Reaching a 34% approval rating among black Americans from a rating that has consistently been between 8 and 10% over nearly 4 years is highly questionable and sounds like another one of your
> "stretch numbers", yet again.
> 
> As far as 16 million black Republicans being out there, this is probably the most ridiculous statement ever made on the internet. And of course it would be none other than you making it.
> 
> Even if there are 47 million blacks in America in the 2020 census, it is currently projected that there will be 30 million ELIGIBLE black voters by the 2020 election.
> 
> Of those eligible voters, it is not guaranteed that all will vote, however if black voter turn out remains close to what it was in 2016, and in prior election years that means voter  turnout within that demographic will be between 55 to 60%.
> 
> Which means that based on what you are spinning here that Republican will become the majority party among the eligible black voters in America, for the first time in generations.
> 
> 16 million black Republicans is yet another mathematical STRETCH on your part, and there are no "cogent" polls that support such nonsense.
> 
> Lastly, the closest that you have come to making a lucid point here is there in fact ARE SOME black opponents of affirmative action, but as usual you have epically failed in proving that there are anywhere near MILLIONS.
> 
> It is glaringly obvious that basic mathematics, common sense and fundamental logic are not your strengths.
> 
> They need to keep you off of the computer at the VA mental ward, It is apparently causing you to hallucinate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
Click to expand...


If you are asking that question, you are truly out there.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice try Mr SaveFace Desperation.  No, you have no comeback.  You have nothing to say here, except to admit that you're an idiot, after I pointed out your list of ignorances and stupidities.
> 
> I don't even remember them all and really, why bother ?  But there was your white women in AA screwup.  Then there was your "thousands" blunder.  It goes on and on.
> 
> I know you have a big ego, and this is hard for you, but you're an idiot.  Accept it, deal with it and move on.
> 
> There's no need for me to explain yet again what I've already repeatedly explained to you.  If your head is so bent by years of leftist programming, you'll just keep on being suckered, believing those wrong polls (ex. Gallup) that say 10%, because like all other Republicans who don't answer their lefty polls, black Republicans don't either.
> 
> When polls that Republicans trust and do respond to are taken, the numbers are correct, as in the 34%, just as the leftwing media polls showing 8-10% are consistently ridiculous.
> 
> If you wish to go on swimming in poll fallacy, like the fools who were ready to victory party for Hillary Loser, you're free to do so.
> 
> No crime in displaying stupidity.
> 
> It is sad though to see how leftist dupes continue to follow the fool talk fed to them by their masters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are asking that question, you are truly out there.
Click to expand...

I was talking about affirmative action, dupe.


----------



## AveryJarhman

Hello. White supremacy is a term used by America's large PRO BLACK community to deflect attention from the HUMAN DYSFUNCTION and FVVKERY present in many PRO BLACK influenced communities.

Sadly I'm referring to the same apparent emotionally troubled PRO BLACK community that chooses to HARASS, BULLY, INTIMIDATE and DENIGRATE successful, accomplished citizens of African descent choosing to peacefully pursue *THEIR OWN* unique vision for L, L, (Love) & Happiness.



 



 

Witness an American citizen, wife & mom passionately condemn potentially life scarring family, people & community harming #AntiSocialBehaviors.

* ⚠️ Strong Language ⚠️ Viewer Discretion Is Advised*

#ProBlack Community Logic, Fvvkery, Atrocities,* #WhiteSupremacy:*




 

In this broadcast Mr. Lenon Honor, an apparent caring, sensible, RESPONSIBLE American citizen Keeps it REAL, speaking about what he calls* "The White Supremacy Promotion Hustle"* ~Lenon Honor


RINGOTVRAW Keeping it 100% Real...

*'Perturbed American Sharing Concerns, Re: Hateful, Dysfunctional Americans Impeding Black Achievement'*

Click here: Perturbed American Sharing Concerns RE: Dysfunctional ‘Black’ Americans Impeding ‘Black’ Achievement - Streamable

Peace.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> All of this obsessive "leftist conspiracy" bullshit that you are spewing here, is nothing but you deflecting as usual, and does not negate the fact that you are obviously incapable of understanding fundamental mathematics and applying the most basic of logical thought.
> 
> Me  recognizing that fact and pointing it out, has nothing to do with political preference, you dim witted dotard.
> 
> Anyone with half of a working brain who claims to be an educated individual(LOL) should be able to understand that 55 to 60% of 30 million black voters does not absolutely guarantee that 16 million black republicans are going to show up at the polls. Especially considering past voting patterns, and approval ratings.
> 
> Nor does it even remotely prove that "millions or even hundreds of thousands" of them oppose affirmative action.
> 
> That is nothing but your maniacal obsession with AA turning into a wishful delusion.
> 
> Your fertile imagination and penchant for making up flat out lies and embellishing numbers is pure comedic entertainment.
> 
> 
> As far as whose polls are credible, generally ALL POLLS whether they lean left or right, contain a certain amount of bias, and your obsession with conservative polls being the only accurate polls out there, makes it obvious that you are also incapable of independent, critical thinking
> 
> If your conservative gods told you today,  to eat shit off of the sidewalk, because "it is good for you", you would obviously do so in a heartbeat, without hesitation.
> 
> If "displaying stupidity", actually was a crime, you would be serving a life sentence in a maximum security prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are asking that question, you are truly out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about affirmative action, dupe.
Click to expand...


No you were not, stupid. Read your own question regarding your imaginary 16 million Republicans.

Your circular reasoning, is further  exposing your senility.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals have a terrible habit of avoiding conservative thought/speech. Consequently, they only peruse liberal thought/speech.
> 
> Consequently, they are the most information-deprived airheads in America.  Notice how katsteve claims that polls have shown Trump getting 8-10% support from blacks.
> 
> "Polls" ?  Even when informed that these are faulty because they are only being answered by Democrats, katsteve continues to naively assert that they have validity.
> 
> When told that conservative polls get answered by everyone, katsteve blindly deflects to equivocating ALL POLLS, when no, they are NOT the same, for the reasons I just stated.
> 
> Looks like Democrats will be preparing a victory party again on election day, only to be crying and screaming at the big screen in front of them, showing a very red USA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are asking that question, you are truly out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about affirmative action, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you were not, stupid. Read your own question regarding your imaginary 16 million Republicans.
> 
> Your circular reasoning, is further  exposing your senility.
Click to expand...

I have no inclination to go rummaging through a thread to go looking for something.  If you want to refer to something, and make point from it, YOU look it up and post it.


----------



## protectionist

Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.

Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.



Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".

AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.

Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have. 


You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not loyal to either party. IMO, BOTH are crooked.
> 
> I have no interest in the outcome one way or another.
> 
> Whoever wins,  will be in office just long enough to make promises to dupes on both sides, then disappe
> 
> But let's digress back to your "math".
> 
> You still have not, in a fluid manner, illustrated how 16 million black Republicans,, , will just "show up" and vote for that party, when history disputes the fact that this could even happen.
> 
> Yet again. And this is becoming remedial, to the point of being annoying.
> 
> Based on your math. this election will reflect nearly a 90%, black  Republican turnout at the polls..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are asking that question, you are truly out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about affirmative action, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you were not, stupid. Read your own question regarding your imaginary 16 million Republicans.
> 
> Your circular reasoning, is further  exposing your senility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no inclination to go rummaging through a thread to go looking for something.  If you want to refer to something, and make point from it, YOU look it up and post it.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. You frequently refer to what you stated in other threads, from your stupid "quizzes" to how you have "proven" so many different points.

But.....when you are reminded of something that you stated that makes no sense at all, you get a  sudden case of amnesia.

Just STFU.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
Click to expand...

If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?

Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?

Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?

You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.

Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.

And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I illustrate, in any manner, how 16 million black Republicans will show up and vote for that party ?  I don't know what you're talking about.  Do you ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are asking that question, you are truly out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was talking about affirmative action, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you were not, stupid. Read your own question regarding your imaginary 16 million Republicans.
> 
> Your circular reasoning, is further  exposing your senility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no inclination to go rummaging through a thread to go looking for something.  If you want to refer to something, and make point from it, YOU look it up and post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You frequently refer to what you stated in other threads, from your stupid "quizzes" to how you have "proven" so many different points.
> 
> But.....when you are reminded of something that you stated that makes no sense at all, you get a  sudden case of amnesia.
> 
> Just STFU.
Click to expand...

You have ALREADY , by not posting what you were referring to.   .


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are asking that question, you are truly out there.
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about affirmative action, dupe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you were not, stupid. Read your own question regarding your imaginary 16 million Republicans.
> 
> Your circular reasoning, is further  exposing your senility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no inclination to go rummaging through a thread to go looking for something.  If you want to refer to something, and make point from it, YOU look it up and post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You frequently refer to what you stated in other threads, from your stupid "quizzes" to how you have "proven" so many different points.
> 
> But.....when you are reminded of something that you stated that makes no sense at all, you get a  sudden case of amnesia.
> 
> Just STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have ALREADY , by not posting what you were referring to.   .
Click to expand...



Put yours on. As shown in the past, you make statements, then deny that you made them.....blaming your old age.

Senility and stupidity are not the same.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was talking about affirmative action, dupe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you were not, stupid. Read your own question regarding your imaginary 16 million Republicans.
> 
> Your circular reasoning, is further  exposing your senility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no inclination to go rummaging through a thread to go looking for something.  If you want to refer to something, and make point from it, YOU look it up and post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You frequently refer to what you stated in other threads, from your stupid "quizzes" to how you have "proven" so many different points.
> 
> But.....when you are reminded of something that you stated that makes no sense at all, you get a  sudden case of amnesia.
> 
> Just STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have ALREADY , by not posting what you were referring to.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put yours on. As shown in the past, you make statements, then deny that you made them.....blaming your old age.
> 
> Senility and stupidity are not the same.
Click to expand...

This is merely what you CLAIM.  I called you out on it - challenged you to present examples of these alleged statements/denials, and you ran. 

And you're still running from it.  No examples every got produced.  Now go wash all that egg off your face.  You'll want to have a presentable appearance for President Trump's State of the Union address tonight, reminding you of the lowest unemployment rate for blacks in US history, that he has attained.  You're welcome.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
Click to expand...


AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.

Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.

That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.


You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.

That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.


You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.

If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.

In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.

As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.

Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?

The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary. 

That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.

It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.


As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.

Unlike you.

If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.

That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
Click to expand...

I don't care if your information--deprived jibberish is 5 words or 1005 words.  Either way, all you're doing here is showing off your ignorance.

And you really have no excuse.  Just from my posts alone, you have gotten informed enough to have overcome the OMISSION media that distorts your mind. There's no reason why you should still be slobbering these pages with ignorant notions about AA, with words like "the wording of the initiative".

You are so ignorant and naive that you live in a world of words, while millions of victims of AA suffer real life losses$$$ of fortunes$$, over their whole lifetimes, while fools like you blabber about words.

Did all these "words" you cite, help whites, Hispanics, Asians, and non-black women, when all of them were denied assistantships at my graduate school, and thousands of others like it ?  Did all those illustrious "words" help at all when all the assistantships racistly went only to blacks, despite their lower academic achievement ?
Answer: Nope.  Not one bit.

The difference between you and me is you are living in a world of words and ideas, and I am living in a world of real life EVENTS, of which you are clueless.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
Click to expand...

Your brain is so fogged by years of liberal mush, that you incredibly say "it would never be allowed for hundreds of millions of white people to be victimized for the sake of the black population."

Never be allowed, huh ?  Wow.  You are so deranged, that you don't know that this is exactly what has been occuring for over 50 years now ?  You really don't know that.  You are one amazing dude, but I'll bet there's millions more like you out there.  I see them all the time speaking mountains of ignorance on tv, especially on PBS channels.

Further display of your derangement is you calling me insane for simply observing what I've seen in my apartment complex, emanating not only from AA, but also from ludicrous college open admissions policies, and things like what was cited in my Quiz for Liberals thread, which you are also clueless about.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
Click to expand...

Your whole post here reeks of the mental aberration instilled in people, especially blacks, that has made otherwise normal people into total nutjobs who believe it's OK to racially (and illegally) discriminate as long as blacks are the beneficiaries, and whites et al are the victims.

And so now you claim to have never seen an AA questionnaire, but you want to tell us all about AA.  I don't quite know why you would want me to post a copy of an AA questionnaire.  For what ? When almost everyone in America has seen them.

It's also weird that you now refer to me as "misogynistic".  More of your lunacy ?  As for "homophobic", I guess this is part of your liberal lunacy that lives the lie that sex perverts are perfectly normal.  Another reason why the left is disintegrating in America (thankfully).

As for "racist scum", that's you, supporter of the #1 racist discrimination in America, hurting, by far, the largest number people, ie. Affirmative Action.  A total racist loon-grabber like you has no business using the word "fairness".  How come your not whining about oppression, and looting somewhere ?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
Click to expand...

"could be at risk" ?  How trivial is that compared to hundreds of millions of whites being long beyond "risk", and suffering the discrimination of AA, perpetrated by racist dirt like you. ?

There you go again, now referring to my instruments as "cheap shit'.  It so happens only one of the 4 instruments I mentioned is cheap.  That would be my Peavy solid body electric guitar.  My violin, mandolin, and acoustic guitar are all 100% solid wood instruments of good quality, and the fact that you equate prices with quality in musical instruments shows you don't know much about them.  But that goes hand in hand with also your ignorance of how to play them.


----------



## deanrd

Just think, by this time next year, the entire GOP leadership in the House and the Senate will be 100% white and 95% men.

This is the NEW "diversity".


----------



## MaryL

BuckToothMoron said:


> White supremacy is a term generally associated with the current new-nazi wack job types. Among decent people in this country, the term generally carries a negative connotation, and conjures images of inbred ingrates wearing sheets with small weenies and ugly women, but that’s just my impression.


 White supremacy died  150 years ago with the old school plantations and the Confederacy, forgive us for noticing a lot of WHITES died to set blacks free. Reparations ? How much do blacks owe us? No a penny. A thank you and move on that would be thanks aplenty.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No you were not, stupid. Read your own question regarding your imaginary 16 million Republicans.
> 
> Your circular reasoning, is further  exposing your senility.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no inclination to go rummaging through a thread to go looking for something.  If you want to refer to something, and make point from it, YOU look it up and post it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You frequently refer to what you stated in other threads, from your stupid "quizzes" to how you have "proven" so many different points.
> 
> But.....when you are reminded of something that you stated that makes no sense at all, you get a  sudden case of amnesia.
> 
> Just STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have ALREADY , by not posting what you were referring to.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put yours on. As shown in the past, you make statements, then deny that you made them.....blaming your old age.
> 
> Senility and stupidity are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is merely what you CLAIM.  I called you out on it - challenged you to present examples of these alleged statements/denials, and you ran.
> 
> And you're still running from it.  No examples every got produced.  Now go wash all that egg off your face.  You'll want to have a presentable appearance for President Trump's State of the Union address tonight, reminding you of the lowest unemployment rate for blacks in US history, that he has attained.  You're welcome.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO. "Attained"? More like inherited, courtesy of the direction that the last administration was heading towards. 

Get your nose out of Trumps ass.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your whole post here reeks of the mental aberration instilled in people, especially blacks, that has made otherwise normal people into total nutjobs who believe it's OK to racially (and illegally) discriminate as long as blacks are the beneficiaries, and whites et al are the victims.
> 
> And so now you claim to have never seen an AA questionnaire, but you want to tell us all about AA.  I don't quite know why you would want me to post a copy of an AA questionnaire.  For what ? When almost everyone in America has seen them.
> 
> It's also weird that you now refer to me as "misogynistic".  More of your lunacy ?  As for "homophobic", I guess this is part of your liberal lunacy that lives the lie that sex perverts are perfectly normal.  Another reason why the left is disintegrating in America (thankfully).
> 
> As for "racist scum", that's you, supporter of the #1 racist discrimination in America, hurting, by far, the largest number people, ie. Affirmative Action.  A total racist loon-grabber like you has no business using the word "fairness".  How come your not whining about oppression, and looting somewhere ?
Click to expand...


Your imagination is quite impressive. I prefer not to whine about being oppressed, like you do.... almost daily.


I'm far too busy enjoying life.

Change your Depends and maybe you will feel better.

Words and time are far too valuable to waste on the likes of you.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "could be at risk" ?  How trivial is that compared to hundreds of millions of whites being long beyond "risk", and suffering the discrimination of AA, perpetrated by racist dirt like you. ?
> 
> There you go again, now referring to my instruments as "cheap shit'.  It so happens only one of the 4 instruments I mentioned is cheap.  That would be my Peavy solid body electric guitar.  My violin, mandolin, and acoustic guitar are all 100% solid wood instruments of good quality, and the fact that you equate prices with quality in musical instruments shows you don't know much about them.  But that goes hand in hand with also your ignorance of how to play them.
Click to expand...


Back to your  "hundreds of millions" delusion.

Yet again.
Your imagination and the actual
truth are not the same.

Lastly......there is no need to justify the value of your so called "instruments" to me.

You get what you pay for.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if your information--deprived jibberish is 5 words or 1005 words.  Either way, all you're doing here is showing off your ignorance.
> 
> And you really have no excuse.  Just from my posts alone, you have gotten informed enough to have overcome the OMISSION media that distorts your mind. There's no reason why you should still be slobbering these pages with ignorant notions about AA, with words like "the wording of the initiative".
> 
> You are so ignorant and naive that you live in a world of words, while millions of victims of AA suffer real life losses$$$ of fortunes$$, over their whole lifetimes, while fools like you blabber about words.
> 
> Did all these "words" you cite, help whites, Hispanics, Asians, and non-black women, when all of them were denied assistantships at my graduate school, and thousands of others like it ?  Did all those illustrious "words" help at all when all the assistantships racistly went only to blacks, despite their lower academic achievement ?
> Answer: Nope.  Not one bit.
> 
> The difference between you and me is you are living in a world of words and ideas, and I am living in a world of real life EVENTS, of which you are clueless.
Click to expand...


It is abundantly clear that you reside somewhere in The Twilight Zone, and your calendar is stuck in 1964.

It must be quite a burden dwelling day in and day out in your victimhood.

Guess what? No one feels sorry for you, or cares about what life dealt you.

Your life is your responsibility. You win some and lose some.

A person of your advanced age should know that.

It's never too late to grow up and leave the past behind.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> Words and time are far too valuable to waste on the likes of you.


Then why do you keep posting to me ? Just another example of the joke your posts are.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if your information--deprived jibberish is 5 words or 1005 words.  Either way, all you're doing here is showing off your ignorance.
> 
> And you really have no excuse.  Just from my posts alone, you have gotten informed enough to have overcome the OMISSION media that distorts your mind. There's no reason why you should still be slobbering these pages with ignorant notions about AA, with words like "the wording of the initiative".
> 
> You are so ignorant and naive that you live in a world of words, while millions of victims of AA suffer real life losses$$$ of fortunes$$, over their whole lifetimes, while fools like you blabber about words.
> 
> Did all these "words" you cite, help whites, Hispanics, Asians, and non-black women, when all of them were denied assistantships at my graduate school, and thousands of others like it ?  Did all those illustrious "words" help at all when all the assistantships racistly went only to blacks, despite their lower academic achievement ?
> Answer: Nope.  Not one bit.
> 
> The difference between you and me is you are living in a world of words and ideas, and I am living in a world of real life EVENTS, of which you are clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is abundantly clear that you reside somewhere in The Twilight Zone, and your calendar is stuck in 1964.
> 
> It must be quite a burden dwelling day in and day out in your victimhood.
> 
> Guess what? No one feels sorry for you, or cares about what life dealt you.
> 
> Your life is your responsibility. You win some and lose some.
> 
> A person of your advanced age should know that.
> 
> It's never too late to grow up and leave the past behind.
Click to expand...

 Not quite sure what it is you're babbling about regarding the past, but.....

Yes, I've been a victim of AA.  But my reaction is mild compared to black rioters, arsonists,..looters, knockout gamers, .......and these are folks receiving AA, open admissions, welfare, and other pitiful panders.  Truly amazing.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Katsteve brags that he has a nice house and car, and high quality, expensive musical instruments.  He says he got all this without Affirmative Action.
> 
> Well, if that's the case, then katsteve contradicts his own claim/whine that blacks need AA to succeed.  He presents an example of the LACK of need for AA, as do many other blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "could be at risk" ?  How trivial is that compared to hundreds of millions of whites being long beyond "risk", and suffering the discrimination of AA, perpetrated by racist dirt like you. ?
> 
> There you go again, now referring to my instruments as "cheap shit'.  It so happens only one of the 4 instruments I mentioned is cheap.  That would be my Peavy solid body electric guitar.  My violin, mandolin, and acoustic guitar are all 100% solid wood instruments of good quality, and the fact that you equate prices with quality in musical instruments shows you don't know much about them.  But that goes hand in hand with also your ignorance of how to play them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to your  "hundreds of millions" delusion.
> 
> Yet again.
> Your imagination and the actual
> truth are not the same.
> 
> Lastly......there is no need to justify the value of your so called "instruments" to me.
> 
> You get what you pay for.
Click to expand...

If you're dumb enough to blow hundreds of dollars for a name, what you "get" is suckered.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no inclination to go rummaging through a thread to go looking for something.  If you want to refer to something, and make point from it, YOU look it up and post it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You frequently refer to what you stated in other threads, from your stupid "quizzes" to how you have "proven" so many different points.
> 
> But.....when you are reminded of something that you stated that makes no sense at all, you get a  sudden case of amnesia.
> 
> Just STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have ALREADY , by not posting what you were referring to.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put yours on. As shown in the past, you make statements, then deny that you made them.....blaming your old age.
> 
> Senility and stupidity are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is merely what you CLAIM.  I called you out on it - challenged you to present examples of these alleged statements/denials, and you ran.
> 
> And you're still running from it.  No examples every got produced.  Now go wash all that egg off your face.  You'll want to have a presentable appearance for President Trump's State of the Union address tonight, reminding you of the lowest unemployment rate for blacks in US history, that he has attained.  You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. "Attained"? More like inherited, courtesy of the direction that the last administration was heading towards.
> 
> Get your nose out of Trumps ass.
Click to expand...

The last administration's direction was DOWN. Like sinking ship.  Even the biased Obama-friendly BEA admits that.  

Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg?w=600


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words and time are far too valuable to waste on the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep posting to me ? Just another example of the joke your posts are.
Click to expand...


It's you that keeps posting to EVERYONE  about you being an AA victim...LMAO.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if your information--deprived jibberish is 5 words or 1005 words.  Either way, all you're doing here is showing off your ignorance.
> 
> And you really have no excuse.  Just from my posts alone, you have gotten informed enough to have overcome the OMISSION media that distorts your mind. There's no reason why you should still be slobbering these pages with ignorant notions about AA, with words like "the wording of the initiative".
> 
> You are so ignorant and naive that you live in a world of words, while millions of victims of AA suffer real life losses$$$ of fortunes$$, over their whole lifetimes, while fools like you blabber about words.
> 
> Did all these "words" you cite, help whites, Hispanics, Asians, and non-black women, when all of them were denied assistantships at my graduate school, and thousands of others like it ?  Did all those illustrious "words" help at all when all the assistantships racistly went only to blacks, despite their lower academic achievement ?
> Answer: Nope.  Not one bit.
> 
> The difference between you and me is you are living in a world of words and ideas, and I am living in a world of real life EVENTS, of which you are clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is abundantly clear that you reside somewhere in The Twilight Zone, and your calendar is stuck in 1964.
> 
> It must be quite a burden dwelling day in and day out in your victimhood.
> 
> Guess what? No one feels sorry for you, or cares about what life dealt you.
> 
> Your life is your responsibility. You win some and lose some.
> 
> A person of your advanced age should know that.
> 
> It's never too late to grow up and leave the past behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not quite sure what it is you're babbling about regarding the past, but.....
> 
> Yes, I've been a victim of AA.  But my reaction is mild compared to black rioters, arsonists,..looters, knockout gamers, .......and these are folks receiving AA, open admissions, welfare, and other pitiful panders.  Truly amazing.
Click to expand...



According to you, ANYONE who is black and employed, irs because of AA. If they are unemployed and on the street, it's because of AA. 


What is truly amazing, is how you believe you are being victimized by all of them.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop lying, you senile old fool. I have never stated that blacks NEED affirmative action to succeed".
> 
> AA is not race specific. Read the law, you idiot.
> 
> Nor have I ever "bragged" about what I have.
> 
> You however, have incessantly whined about what YOU don't have, because of AA, you poor little victim.
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "could be at risk" ?  How trivial is that compared to hundreds of millions of whites being long beyond "risk", and suffering the discrimination of AA, perpetrated by racist dirt like you. ?
> 
> There you go again, now referring to my instruments as "cheap shit'.  It so happens only one of the 4 instruments I mentioned is cheap.  That would be my Peavy solid body electric guitar.  My violin, mandolin, and acoustic guitar are all 100% solid wood instruments of good quality, and the fact that you equate prices with quality in musical instruments shows you don't know much about them.  But that goes hand in hand with also your ignorance of how to play them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to your  "hundreds of millions" delusion.
> 
> Yet again.
> Your imagination and the actual
> truth are not the same.
> 
> Lastly......there is no need to justify the value of your so called "instruments" to me.
> 
> You get what you pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're dumb enough to blow hundreds of dollars for a name, what you "get" is suckered.
Click to expand...


Hardly, the case, dumbass. I bought a Gibson ES335 for 900.00 in 1985. It is now worth nearly 3500.00.

Quality appreciates.....cheap shit is cheap forever.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. You frequently refer to what you stated in other threads, from your stupid "quizzes" to how you have "proven" so many different points.
> 
> But.....when you are reminded of something that you stated that makes no sense at all, you get a  sudden case of amnesia.
> 
> Just STFU.
> 
> 
> 
> You have ALREADY , by not posting what you were referring to.   .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Put yours on. As shown in the past, you make statements, then deny that you made them.....blaming your old age.
> 
> Senility and stupidity are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is merely what you CLAIM.  I called you out on it - challenged you to present examples of these alleged statements/denials, and you ran.
> 
> And you're still running from it.  No examples every got produced.  Now go wash all that egg off your face.  You'll want to have a presentable appearance for President Trump's State of the Union address tonight, reminding you of the lowest unemployment rate for blacks in US history, that he has attained.  You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. "Attained"? More like inherited, courtesy of the direction that the last administration was heading towards.
> 
> Get your nose out of Trumps ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last administration's direction was DOWN. Like sinking ship.  Even the biased Obama-friendly BEA admits that.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg?w=600
Click to expand...


Fact check:
AP FACT CHECK: Trump exaggerates his role in black job gains


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words and time are far too valuable to waste on the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep posting to me ? Just another example of the joke your posts are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you that keeps posting to EVERYONE  about you being an AA victim...LMAO.
Click to expand...

And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if your information--deprived jibberish is 5 words or 1005 words.  Either way, all you're doing here is showing off your ignorance.
> 
> And you really have no excuse.  Just from my posts alone, you have gotten informed enough to have overcome the OMISSION media that distorts your mind. There's no reason why you should still be slobbering these pages with ignorant notions about AA, with words like "the wording of the initiative".
> 
> You are so ignorant and naive that you live in a world of words, while millions of victims of AA suffer real life losses$$$ of fortunes$$, over their whole lifetimes, while fools like you blabber about words.
> 
> Did all these "words" you cite, help whites, Hispanics, Asians, and non-black women, when all of them were denied assistantships at my graduate school, and thousands of others like it ?  Did all those illustrious "words" help at all when all the assistantships racistly went only to blacks, despite their lower academic achievement ?
> Answer: Nope.  Not one bit.
> 
> The difference between you and me is you are living in a world of words and ideas, and I am living in a world of real life EVENTS, of which you are clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is abundantly clear that you reside somewhere in The Twilight Zone, and your calendar is stuck in 1964.
> 
> It must be quite a burden dwelling day in and day out in your victimhood.
> 
> Guess what? No one feels sorry for you, or cares about what life dealt you.
> 
> Your life is your responsibility. You win some and lose some.
> 
> A person of your advanced age should know that.
> 
> It's never too late to grow up and leave the past behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not quite sure what it is you're babbling about regarding the past, but.....
> 
> Yes, I've been a victim of AA.  But my reaction is mild compared to black rioters, arsonists,..looters, knockout gamers, .......and these are folks receiving AA, open admissions, welfare, and other pitiful panders.  Truly amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to you, ANYONE who is black and employed, irs because of AA. If they are unemployed and on the street, it's because of AA.
> 
> What is truly amazing, is how you believe you are being victimized by all of them.
Click to expand...

What on Earth are you babbling about now ?  Of course AA does not cause blacks to be unemployed.  It does just the opposite, by giving them jobs they don't deserve.  It does cause many whites to be unemployed.

As for employed blacks, they may or may not have gotten their job from AA, but the public has no way of knowing which.  As long as AA exists, employed blacks will always live under the dark cloud of suspicion.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you don't think they need AA, then why do you go to the extent of supporting race discrimination against the majority of Americans, to support this abomination ?
> 
> Moron.  Of course AA is race specific.  Have your ever laid eyes on an AA questionnaire ?  It asks you what "specific" race you are.  Duh!  Get it ?
> 
> Yes, you have bragged about what you have. Repeatedly.  How else would we know that you have a "Fender" guitar, among the other material things you've bragged about ?
> 
> You even went to the extent of disparaging my 4 musical instruments, calling their sum value of $2,000, "paltry".  What's the matter, Stevie ?  Getting "senile" in your old age ?  Memory is the first thing to go.
> 
> Or maybe in your case, it's not memory.  It's incompetent dishonesty.
> 
> And the biggest whiners in America, are AA supporters, like you. Always bitching about being "Oppressed", while playing the 2 chords you know, on your expensive Fender guitar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "could be at risk" ?  How trivial is that compared to hundreds of millions of whites being long beyond "risk", and suffering the discrimination of AA, perpetrated by racist dirt like you. ?
> 
> There you go again, now referring to my instruments as "cheap shit'.  It so happens only one of the 4 instruments I mentioned is cheap.  That would be my Peavy solid body electric guitar.  My violin, mandolin, and acoustic guitar are all 100% solid wood instruments of good quality, and the fact that you equate prices with quality in musical instruments shows you don't know much about them.  But that goes hand in hand with also your ignorance of how to play them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to your  "hundreds of millions" delusion.
> 
> Yet again.
> Your imagination and the actual
> truth are not the same.
> 
> Lastly......there is no need to justify the value of your so called "instruments" to me.
> 
> You get what you pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're dumb enough to blow hundreds of dollars for a name, what you "get" is suckered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly, the case, dumbass. I bought a Gibson ES335 for 900.00 in 1985. It is now worth nearly 3500.00.
> 
> Quality appreciates.....cheap shit is cheap forever.
Click to expand...

HahaHaha.Gibson is the #1 example of horribly overpriced instruments, where people pay for the NAME.

You're lucky if your ES335 is as good as a new Epiphone, Washburn, Ibanez, or Eastman costing a fraction of $3500. 

Sells for and "worth" are not the same thing, sucker.

Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have ALREADY , by not posting what you were referring to.   .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Put yours on. As shown in the past, you make statements, then deny that you made them.....blaming your old age.
> 
> Senility and stupidity are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is merely what you CLAIM.  I called you out on it - challenged you to present examples of these alleged statements/denials, and you ran.
> 
> And you're still running from it.  No examples every got produced.  Now go wash all that egg off your face.  You'll want to have a presentable appearance for President Trump's State of the Union address tonight, reminding you of the lowest unemployment rate for blacks in US history, that he has attained.  You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. "Attained"? More like inherited, courtesy of the direction that the last administration was heading towards.
> 
> Get your nose out of Trumps ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last administration's direction was DOWN. Like sinking ship.  Even the biased Obama-friendly BEA admits that.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg?w=600
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact check:
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump exaggerates his role in black job gains
Click to expand...

You expect to make a point here, citing AP as a source ?  Sure, you run with that all the way to the 2020 election, and watch that bright, red election day map light up.

Earth to ks:. AP is just another Trump bash media joke.  Ho hum.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words and time are far too valuable to waste on the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep posting to me ? Just another example of the joke your posts are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you that keeps posting to EVERYONE  about you being an AA victim...LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing.
Click to expand...


Ov


protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Put yours on. As shown in the past, you make statements, then deny that you made them.....blaming your old age.
> 
> Senility and stupidity are not the same.
> 
> 
> 
> This is merely what you CLAIM.  I called you out on it - challenged you to present examples of these alleged statements/denials, and you ran.
> 
> And you're still running from it.  No examples every got produced.  Now go wash all that egg off your face.  You'll want to have a presentable appearance for President Trump's State of the Union address tonight, reminding you of the lowest unemployment rate for blacks in US history, that he has attained.  You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. "Attained"? More like inherited, courtesy of the direction that the last administration was heading towards.
> 
> Get your nose out of Trumps ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last administration's direction was DOWN. Like sinking ship.  Even the biased Obama-friendly BEA admits that.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg?w=600
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact check:
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump exaggerates his role in black job gains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect to make a point here, citing AP as a source ?  Sure, you run with that all the way to the 2020 election, and watch that bright, red election day map light up.
> 
> Earth to ks:. AP is just another Trump bash media joke.  Ho hum.
Click to expand...


But you cannot refute it.


Translation "If I cover my eyes and ears and deny the truth, I can convinvce myself of anything"....you are a simple minded, odd creature to be as old as you are.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> 
> 
> "could be at risk" ?  How trivial is that compared to hundreds of millions of whites being long beyond "risk", and suffering the discrimination of AA, perpetrated by racist dirt like you. ?
> 
> There you go again, now referring to my instruments as "cheap shit'.  It so happens only one of the 4 instruments I mentioned is cheap.  That would be my Peavy solid body electric guitar.  My violin, mandolin, and acoustic guitar are all 100% solid wood instruments of good quality, and the fact that you equate prices with quality in musical instruments shows you don't know much about them.  But that goes hand in hand with also your ignorance of how to play them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back to your  "hundreds of millions" delusion.
> 
> Yet again.
> Your imagination and the actual
> truth are not the same.
> 
> Lastly......there is no need to justify the value of your so called "instruments" to me.
> 
> You get what you pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're dumb enough to blow hundreds of dollars for a name, what you "get" is suckered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly, the case, dumbass. I bought a Gibson ES335 for 900.00 in 1985. It is now worth nearly 3500.00.
> 
> Quality appreciates.....cheap shit is cheap forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HahaHaha.Gibson is the #1 example of horribly overpriced instruments, where people pay for the NAME.
> 
> You're lucky if your ES335 is as good as a new Epiphone, Washburn, Ibanez, or Eastman costing a fraction of $3500.
> 
> Sells for and "worth" are not the same thing, sucker.
> 
> Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?
Click to expand...



"Worth" as in what I've actually  been offered,. I've owned several Epiphones over the years and there is a vast difference in materials and quality. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know this.

If you could afford one, you would own one.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> AA is NOT race specific in favoring any SINGLE race, you retarded government leech.
> 
> Nowhere does it identify a SINGLE race of people who are to be protected by the initiative, the wording of the initiative is general enough to ensure that, you idiot.
> 
> That is a ridiculous fabrication from your own imagination. It would never be allowed in America for "hundreds of millions of white people" to be "victimized" for the sake of the black population.
> 
> 
> You are so crazed that you even went so far once to state that you noticed non whites in your apartment complex, driving newer cars than dreck like you, because of AA, which is absolutely insane.
> 
> That is a statement that only a loon who should be institutionalized would make.
> 
> 
> You are so obsessed and bitter over being a miserable, abysmal failure that even at your advanced age you are here non stop, looking for any way to pollute any thread you can with your victimhood.
> 
> If you actually were as succesful as you claim that you WERE, you would be enjoying life, as opposed to whining about wanting reparations because of AA.
> 
> In fact, as far as people whining about being "oppressed" as you say, you bring up AA and whine about being oppressed  more than any other poster here.
> 
> As far as AA questionnaires, I don't know when you last worked, nor do I care, but I never saw one in 45 years in the workplace, while you're at it, feel free to point out where I have whined about anything regarding AA.
> 
> Why don't you post a copy of one, as opposed expecting sane people here to take the word of a crazy person?
> 
> The truth is that it was signed into law because of mysoginistic, homophobic, racist scum like you, and there are still enough out there like you to make it necessary.
> 
> That does not translate to them NEEDING it, what it means is that there are still enough instances of workplace discrimination, for some laws to enforce fairness and accountability to be in place.
> 
> It doesn't affect me because I'm retired, but future generations of females and minorities could be at risk because you and those like you have not totally died off yet.
> 
> 
> As far as your belief that I have "bragged about what I have", you were the moron that was foolish enough to state first that "you have 4 string instruments worth 2,000.00,  Which DEFINITELY IS a paltry sum for 4 instruments combined, and I responded. So remember what I state.
> 
> Unlike you.
> 
> If you actually knew as much about instruments as you claim to, you would know that you have some cheap shit.
> 
> That aside, I have no need to brag, because material possessions don't define me, but it sure appeared to mess with your empty head when I stated what guitars I have.......ROFLMAO!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if your information--deprived jibberish is 5 words or 1005 words.  Either way, all you're doing here is showing off your ignorance.
> 
> And you really have no excuse.  Just from my posts alone, you have gotten informed enough to have overcome the OMISSION media that distorts your mind. There's no reason why you should still be slobbering these pages with ignorant notions about AA, with words like "the wording of the initiative".
> 
> You are so ignorant and naive that you live in a world of words, while millions of victims of AA suffer real life losses$$$ of fortunes$$, over their whole lifetimes, while fools like you blabber about words.
> 
> Did all these "words" you cite, help whites, Hispanics, Asians, and non-black women, when all of them were denied assistantships at my graduate school, and thousands of others like it ?  Did all those illustrious "words" help at all when all the assistantships racistly went only to blacks, despite their lower academic achievement ?
> Answer: Nope.  Not one bit.
> 
> The difference between you and me is you are living in a world of words and ideas, and I am living in a world of real life EVENTS, of which you are clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is abundantly clear that you reside somewhere in The Twilight Zone, and your calendar is stuck in 1964.
> 
> It must be quite a burden dwelling day in and day out in your victimhood.
> 
> Guess what? No one feels sorry for you, or cares about what life dealt you.
> 
> Your life is your responsibility. You win some and lose some.
> 
> A person of your advanced age should know that.
> 
> It's never too late to grow up and leave the past behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not quite sure what it is you're babbling about regarding the past, but.....
> 
> Yes, I've been a victim of AA.  But my reaction is mild compared to black rioters, arsonists,..looters, knockout gamers, .......and these are folks receiving AA, open admissions, welfare, and other pitiful panders.  Truly amazing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> According to you, ANYONE who is black and employed, irs because of AA. If they are unemployed and on the street, it's because of AA.
> 
> What is truly amazing, is how you believe you are being victimized by all of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What on Earth are you babbling about now ?  Of course AA does not cause blacks to be unemployed.  It does just the opposite, by giving them jobs they don't deserve.  It does cause many whites to be unemployed.
> 
> As for employed blacks, they may or may not have gotten their job from AA, but the public has no way of knowing which.  As long as AA exists, employed blacks will always live under the dark cloud of suspicion.
Click to expand...


Only under suspicion from failures who need someone to point to as justification for their own uselessness.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words and time are far too valuable to waste on the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep posting to me ? Just another example of the joke your posts are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you that keeps posting to EVERYONE  about you being an AA victim...LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing.
Click to expand...


Of course you will. Most elderly failures  that have outlived their usefulness in society need a way to salvage what's left of their self esteem.

It must upset you to no end to look around and see so many of the blacks that you despise, doing far better than you ever did.

Hilarious.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words and time are far too valuable to waste on the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep posting to me ? Just another example of the joke your posts are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you that keeps posting to EVERYONE  about you being an AA victim...LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ov
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is merely what you CLAIM.  I called you out on it - challenged you to present examples of these alleged statements/denials, and you ran.
> 
> And you're still running from it.  No examples every got produced.  Now go wash all that egg off your face.  You'll want to have a presentable appearance for President Trump's State of the Union address tonight, reminding you of the lowest unemployment rate for blacks in US history, that he has attained.  You're welcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. "Attained"? More like inherited, courtesy of the direction that the last administration was heading towards.
> 
> Get your nose out of Trumps ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last administration's direction was DOWN. Like sinking ship.  Even the biased Obama-friendly BEA admits that.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg?w=600
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact check:
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump exaggerates his role in black job gains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect to make a point here, citing AP as a source ?  Sure, you run with that all the way to the 2020 election, and watch that bright, red election day map light up.
> 
> Earth to ks:. AP is just another Trump bash media joke.  Ho hum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> Translation "If I cover my eyes and ears and deny the truth, I can convinvce myself of anything"....you are a simple minded, odd creature to be as old as you are.
Click to expand...

No need to comment on invalid sources.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> "could be at risk" ?  How trivial is that compared to hundreds of millions of whites being long beyond "risk", and suffering the discrimination of AA, perpetrated by racist dirt like you. ?
> 
> There you go again, now referring to my instruments as "cheap shit'.  It so happens only one of the 4 instruments I mentioned is cheap.  That would be my Peavy solid body electric guitar.  My violin, mandolin, and acoustic guitar are all 100% solid wood instruments of good quality, and the fact that you equate prices with quality in musical instruments shows you don't know much about them.  But that goes hand in hand with also your ignorance of how to play them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your  "hundreds of millions" delusion.
> 
> Yet again.
> Your imagination and the actual
> truth are not the same.
> 
> Lastly......there is no need to justify the value of your so called "instruments" to me.
> 
> You get what you pay for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're dumb enough to blow hundreds of dollars for a name, what you "get" is suckered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly, the case, dumbass. I bought a Gibson ES335 for 900.00 in 1985. It is now worth nearly 3500.00.
> 
> Quality appreciates.....cheap shit is cheap forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HahaHaha.Gibson is the #1 example of horribly overpriced instruments, where people pay for the NAME.
> 
> You're lucky if your ES335 is as good as a new Epiphone, Washburn, Ibanez, or Eastman costing a fraction of $3500.
> 
> Sells for and "worth" are not the same thing, sucker.
> 
> Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Worth" as in what I've actually  been offered,. I've owned several Epiphones over the years and there is a vast difference in materials and quality. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know this.
> 
> If you could afford one, you would own one.
Click to expand...

Ha ha.  If YOU knew what you were talking about, you'd know why many people say "Epiphone is the new Gibson." You'd also know how Epiphone and Gibson guitar owners compare their guitars of related models, and find no difference . I was one of them.  Previously, I posted some photos of my instruments, including my Epiphone SG.  It was just this guitar that I tested against my neighbor's Gibson SG.  He put on a sleeper eye mask (blindfold) and then played both guitars.  He couldn't tell which was which.

Then I tried.  I couldn't tell them apart either.  This has been done many times, by many people.  You never heard ?


----------



## IM2

*"As long as AA exists, employed blacks will always live under the dark cloud of suspicion."*

I suppose there is no suspicion about all the years whites got jobs before AA and for white women today. Stop repeating that lie about whites being unemployed because of AA . The facts don't support you and you will never  find any that do. You and Correll are the two most whiny ass white pieces of shit in this forum.


----------



## IM2

*"And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing."*

*




*​


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Words and time are far too valuable to waste on the likes of you.
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep posting to me ? Just another example of the joke your posts are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's you that keeps posting to EVERYONE  about you being an AA victim...LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ov
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. "Attained"? More like inherited, courtesy of the direction that the last administration was heading towards.
> 
> Get your nose out of Trumps ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last administration's direction was DOWN. Like sinking ship.  Even the biased Obama-friendly BEA admits that.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg?w=600
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact check:
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump exaggerates his role in black job gains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect to make a point here, citing AP as a source ?  Sure, you run with that all the way to the 2020 election, and watch that bright, red election day map light up.
> 
> Earth to ks:. AP is just another Trump bash media joke.  Ho hum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> Translation "If I cover my eyes and ears and deny the truth, I can convinvce myself of anything"....you are a simple minded, odd creature to be as old as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to comment on invalid sources.
Click to expand...


Of course you will not comment on a source that you can't refute. Most parrots don't


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your  "hundreds of millions" delusion.
> 
> Yet again.
> Your imagination and the actual
> truth are not the same.
> 
> Lastly......there is no need to justify the value of your so called "instruments" to me.
> 
> You get what you pay for.
> 
> 
> 
> If you're dumb enough to blow hundreds of dollars for a name, what you "get" is suckered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly, the case, dumbass. I bought a Gibson ES335 for 900.00 in 1985. It is now worth nearly 3500.00.
> 
> Quality appreciates.....cheap shit is cheap forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HahaHaha.Gibson is the #1 example of horribly overpriced instruments, where people pay for the NAME.
> 
> You're lucky if your ES335 is as good as a new Epiphone, Washburn, Ibanez, or Eastman costing a fraction of $3500.
> 
> Sells for and "worth" are not the same thing, sucker.
> 
> Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Worth" as in what I've actually  been offered,. I've owned several Epiphones over the years and there is a vast difference in materials and quality. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know this.
> 
> If you could afford one, you would own one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha.  If YOU knew what you were talking about, you'd know why many people say "Epiphone is the new Gibson." You'd also know how Epiphone and Gibson guitar owners compare their guitars of related models, and find no difference . I was one of them.  Previously, I posted some photos of my instruments, including my Epiphone SG.  It was just this guitar that I tested against my neighbor's Gibson SG.  He put on a sleeper eye mask (blindfold) and then played both guitars.  He couldn't tell which was which.
> 
> Then I tried.  I couldn't tell them apart either.  This has been done many times, by many people.  You never heard ?
Click to expand...


Gibson uses better pickups than Epiphone. Over time Epiphone pickups are more prone to shorting out and failing. That's just one of several quality issues over time.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're dumb enough to blow hundreds of dollars for a name, what you "get" is suckered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hardly, the case, dumbass. I bought a Gibson ES335 for 900.00 in 1985. It is now worth nearly 3500.00.
> 
> Quality appreciates.....cheap shit is cheap forever.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HahaHaha.Gibson is the #1 example of horribly overpriced instruments, where people pay for the NAME.
> 
> You're lucky if your ES335 is as good as a new Epiphone, Washburn, Ibanez, or Eastman costing a fraction of $3500.
> 
> Sells for and "worth" are not the same thing, sucker.
> 
> Wanna buy a bridge in Brooklyn ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Worth" as in what I've actually  been offered,. I've owned several Epiphones over the years and there is a vast difference in materials and quality. If you knew what you were talking about, you would know this.
> 
> If you could afford one, you would own one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ha ha.  If YOU knew what you were talking about, you'd know why many people say "Epiphone is the new Gibson." You'd also know how Epiphone and Gibson guitar owners compare their guitars of related models, and find no difference . I was one of them.  Previously, I posted some photos of my instruments, including my Epiphone SG.  It was just this guitar that I tested against my neighbor's Gibson SG.  He put on a sleeper eye mask (blindfold) and then played both guitars.  He couldn't tell which was which.
> 
> Then I tried.  I couldn't tell them apart either.  This has been done many times, by many people.  You never heard ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gibson uses better pickups than Epiphone. Over time Epiphone pickups are more prone to shorting out and failing. That's just one of several quality issues over time.
Click to expand...

A pickup can be replaced for a few bucks, and you're back to brand new again.  Hardly a justification for a $3,000 price difference.

The long accepted ideas of old instrument superiority have fallen apart.  Modern technology is just making new (even low-priced Asian) instruments incredibly good.

Violinists can't tell new violins from old, study shows


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then why do you keep posting to me ? Just another example of the joke your posts are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's you that keeps posting to EVERYONE  about you being an AA victim...LMAO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ov
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> The last administration's direction was DOWN. Like sinking ship.  Even the biased Obama-friendly BEA admits that.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg?w=600
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact check:
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump exaggerates his role in black job gains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect to make a point here, citing AP as a source ?  Sure, you run with that all the way to the 2020 election, and watch that bright, red election day map light up.
> 
> Earth to ks:. AP is just another Trump bash media joke.  Ho hum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> Translation "If I cover my eyes and ears and deny the truth, I can convinvce myself of anything"....you are a simple minded, odd creature to be as old as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to comment on invalid sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you will not comment on a source that you can't refute. Most parrots don't
Click to expand...

It's refuted by the economic facts from BLS et al.  I don't fall for meaningless deflect.


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> *"And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing."*
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *​


Guy in the picture is talking to you.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's you that keeps posting to EVERYONE  about you being an AA victim...LMAO.
> 
> 
> 
> And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ov
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact check:
> AP FACT CHECK: Trump exaggerates his role in black job gains
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect to make a point here, citing AP as a source ?  Sure, you run with that all the way to the 2020 election, and watch that bright, red election day map light up.
> 
> Earth to ks:. AP is just another Trump bash media joke.  Ho hum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> Translation "If I cover my eyes and ears and deny the truth, I can convinvce myself of anything"....you are a simple minded, odd creature to be as old as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to comment on invalid sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you will not comment on a source that you can't refute. Most parrots don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's refuted by the economic facts from BLS et al.  I don't fall for meaningless deflect.
Click to expand...


You fall for whatever Trump says. Truth is, when then the last potus wa as in office, black unemployment dropped from over 16% when he took office to below 7% during his two terms.

The current potus added an additional 1.6%. In 3 years. Nothing special in comparison.

The heavy lifting was already done for him.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I will continue that, as long as the lies of blacks being oppressed keep appearing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ov
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You expect to make a point here, citing AP as a source ?  Sure, you run with that all the way to the 2020 election, and watch that bright, red election day map light up.
> 
> Earth to ks:. AP is just another Trump bash media joke.  Ho hum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> Translation "If I cover my eyes and ears and deny the truth, I can convinvce myself of anything"....you are a simple minded, odd creature to be as old as you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No need to comment on invalid sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you will not comment on a source that you can't refute. Most parrots don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's refuted by the economic facts from BLS et al.  I don't fall for meaningless deflect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fall for whatever Trump says. Truth is, when then the last potus wa as in office, black unemployment dropped from over 16% when he took office to below 7% during his two terms.
> 
> The current potus added an additional 1.6%. In 3 years. Nothing special in comparison.
> 
> The heavy lifting was already done for him.
Click to expand...

For the 200th time in this forum, 2009-2015 was just post-recession recoil.  Would be same no matter who was president.

2016 was no longer in the bounce.  It was ,Obama's year.  He was terrible.  GDP sunk like a rock.

Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ov
> But you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> Translation "If I cover my eyes and ears and deny the truth, I can convinvce myself of anything"....you are a simple minded, odd creature to be as old as you are.
> 
> 
> 
> No need to comment on invalid sources.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you will not comment on a source that you can't refute. Most parrots don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's refuted by the economic facts from BLS et al.  I don't fall for meaningless deflect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fall for whatever Trump says. Truth is, when then the last potus wa as in office, black unemployment dropped from over 16% when he took office to below 7% during his two terms.
> 
> The current potus added an additional 1.6%. In 3 years. Nothing special in comparison.
> 
> The heavy lifting was already done for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 200th time in this forum, 2009-2015 was just post-recession recoil.  Would be same no matter who was president.
> 
> 2016 was no longer in the bounce.  It was ,Obama's year.  He was terrible.  GDP sunk like a rock.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg
Click to expand...


He did far more to help the black unemployment rate.

No amount of deflecting on your part changes that fact


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> No need to comment on invalid sources.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you will not comment on a source that you can't refute. Most parrots don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's refuted by the economic facts from BLS et al.  I don't fall for meaningless deflect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fall for whatever Trump says. Truth is, when then the last potus wa as in office, black unemployment dropped from over 16% when he took office to below 7% during his two terms.
> 
> The current potus added an additional 1.6%. In 3 years. Nothing special in comparison.
> 
> The heavy lifting was already done for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 200th time in this forum, 2009-2015 was just post-recession recoil.  Would be same no matter who was president.
> 
> 2016 was no longer in the bounce.  It was ,Obama's year.  He was terrible.  GDP sunk like a rock.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did far more to help the black unemployment rate.
> 
> No amount of deflecting on your part changes that fact
Click to expand...

He did nothing to help anybody other than Muslim jihadists.
  For them, as I listed before, he did a lot.  Only other thing he did was provoke riots.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you will not comment on a source that you can't refute. Most parrots don't
> 
> 
> 
> It's refuted by the economic facts from BLS et al.  I don't fall for meaningless deflect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You fall for whatever Trump says. Truth is, when then the last potus wa as in office, black unemployment dropped from over 16% when he took office to below 7% during his two terms.
> 
> The current potus added an additional 1.6%. In 3 years. Nothing special in comparison.
> 
> The heavy lifting was already done for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 200th time in this forum, 2009-2015 was just post-recession recoil.  Would be same no matter who was president.
> 
> 2016 was no longer in the bounce.  It was ,Obama's year.  He was terrible.  GDP sunk like a rock.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did far more to help the black unemployment rate.
> 
> No amount of deflecting on your part changes that fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did nothing to help anybody other than Muslim jihadists.
> For them, as I listed before, he did a lot.  Only other thing he did was provoke riots.
Click to expand...


Don't you get tired of making up BS?

Trump’s Economic Growth Is Slower Than Obama’s Last 3 Years


----------



## IM2

Some white people just need to shut the fuck up!

*"Every white person isn't guilty for every bad thing that's been done to every black person," Wallis says. "But if we benefit from cooperating with white supremacy, then we are responsible for changing it. To tolerate racism in our social system is to be complicit."*

The Rev. Jim Wallis, author of "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America."


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's refuted by the economic facts from BLS et al.  I don't fall for meaningless deflect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You fall for whatever Trump says. Truth is, when then the last potus wa as in office, black unemployment dropped from over 16% when he took office to below 7% during his two terms.
> 
> The current potus added an additional 1.6%. In 3 years. Nothing special in comparison.
> 
> The heavy lifting was already done for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the 200th time in this forum, 2009-2015 was just post-recession recoil.  Would be same no matter who was president.
> 
> 2016 was no longer in the bounce.  It was ,Obama's year.  He was terrible.  GDP sunk like a rock.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did far more to help the black unemployment rate.
> 
> No amount of deflecting on your part changes that fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did nothing to help anybody other than Muslim jihadists.
> For them, as I listed before, he did a lot.  Only other thing he did was provoke riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you get tired of making up BS?
> 
> Trump’s Economic Growth Is Slower Than Obama’s Last 3 Years
Click to expand...

In less than 10 words of your link, it fell apart with the mention of the laughingstock that is the BEA.  You actually are giving me a link to them ?  You haven't seen my numerous posts about them ?


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Some white people just need to shut the fuck up!
> 
> *"Every white person isn't guilty for every bad thing that's been done to every black person," Wallis says. "But if we benefit from cooperating with white supremacy, then we are responsible for changing it. To tolerate racism in our social system is to be complicit."*
> 
> The Rev. Jim Wallis, author of "America's Original Sin: Racism, White Privilege, and the Bridge to a New America."


Every black person isn't responsible for every bad thing (ex. Affirmative Action) that's been done to every white person, but if they benefit from that black Supremacy, then they are responsible for changing it.  To tolerate racism in our social system, is to be complicit.

Protectionist


----------



## Jitss617

It’s a white person that talks about his race like every race talks about theirs


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fall for whatever Trump says. Truth is, when then the last potus wa as in office, black unemployment dropped from over 16% when he took office to below 7% during his two terms.
> 
> The current potus added an additional 1.6%. In 3 years. Nothing special in comparison.
> 
> The heavy lifting was already done for him.
> 
> 
> 
> For the 200th time in this forum, 2009-2015 was just post-recession recoil.  Would be same no matter who was president.
> 
> 2016 was no longer in the bounce.  It was ,Obama's year.  He was terrible.  GDP sunk like a rock.
> 
> Google Image Result for https://rasica.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/obama-sinking-ship.jpg
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He did far more to help the black unemployment rate.
> 
> No amount of deflecting on your part changes that fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He did nothing to help anybody other than Muslim jihadists.
> For them, as I listed before, he did a lot.  Only other thing he did was provoke riots.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Don't you get tired of making up BS?
> 
> Trump’s Economic Growth Is Slower Than Obama’s Last 3 Years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In less than 10 words of your link, it fell apart with the mention of the laughingstock that is the BEA.  You actually are giving me a link to them ?  You haven't seen my numerous posts about them ?
Click to expand...


Of course I've seen your posts about them, and typically, as with most of your "posts", you tend 
to ignore and even  attempt to discredit sources that publish news that you don't want to believe, all the while, never presenting anything credible to prove your point.


----------



## IM2

Trump inherited a growing economy. He did nothing to grow it. That's a fact and no protection has any credible information that disputes it.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> Of course I've seen your posts about them, and typically, as with most of your "posts", you tend
> to ignore and even  attempt to discredit sources that publish news that you don't want to believe, all the while, never presenting anything credible to prove your point.


Dummy. They've been cooking their books, rearranging their numbers.  I've posted the befores and afters already. You're too late. (or is it lame ?)


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Trump inherited a growing economy. He did nothing to grow it. That's a fact and no protection has any credible information that disputes it.


FALSE!  Before BEA changed their numbers, to keep Obama from being shown as the economic failure that he was, the 2016 GDPs sunk, quarter after quarter.  I've been posting those charts for years now.

The truth is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Obama's 2016 GDPs were sinking and dreadfully low.  Trump took the sinking economy and grew it into the impressive one it is today.

Even the current Obama-friendly BEA doesn't hide entirely Obama's lousy record, in his last chance years (2015-2016) and the Trump recovery and impressive GDPs in 2017/2018.  Note that the 3.5 the BEA records for Trump was actually* 4.2%*, before they cooked the numbers.







U.S. second-quarter GDP growth unrevised at 4.2 percent

GDP Expanded at 4.2% Rate in Second Quarter


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I've seen your posts about them, and typically, as with most of your "posts", you tend
> to ignore and even  attempt to discredit sources that publish news that you don't want to believe, all the while, never presenting anything credible to prove your point.
> 
> 
> 
> Dummy. They've been cooking their books, rearranging their numbers.  I've posted the befores and afters already. You're too late. (or is it lame ?)
Click to expand...

You dunce. You're nothing more than  a conspiracy theory chaser.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> You dunce. You're nothing more than  a conspiracy theory chaser.


Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.

Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce. You're nothing more than  a conspiracy theory chaser.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.
> 
> Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.
Click to expand...



What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?

 You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump inherited a growing economy. He did nothing to grow it. That's a fact and no protection has any credible information that disputes it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Before BEA changed their numbers, to keep Obama from being shown as the economic failure that he was, the 2016 GDPs sunk, quarter after quarter.  I've been posting those charts for years now.
> 
> The truth is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Obama's 2016 GDPs were sinking and dreadfully low.  Trump took the sinking economy and grew it into the impressive one it is today.
> 
> Even the current Obama-friendly BEA doesn't hide entirely Obama's lousy record, in his last chance years (2015-2016) and the Trump recovery and impressive GDPs in 2017/2018.  Note that the 3.5 the BEA records for Trump was actually* 4.2%*, before they cooked the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth unrevised at 4.2 percent
> 
> GDP Expanded at 4.2% Rate in Second Quarter
Click to expand...


The BEA was founded by a conservative(Nixon), they are not partial to Obama.


GDP: How Donald Trump's administration is spinning economic numbers

State of the Union 2020: Trump economic claims fact-check


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce. You're nothing more than  a conspiracy theory chaser.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.
> 
> Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
Click to expand...

I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump inherited a growing economy. He did nothing to grow it. That's a fact and no protection has any credible information that disputes it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Before BEA changed their numbers, to keep Obama from being shown as the economic failure that he was, the 2016 GDPs sunk, quarter after quarter.  I've been posting those charts for years now.
> 
> The truth is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Obama's 2016 GDPs were sinking and dreadfully low.  Trump took the sinking economy and grew it into the impressive one it is today.
> 
> Even the current Obama-friendly BEA doesn't hide entirely Obama's lousy record, in his last chance years (2015-2016) and the Trump recovery and impressive GDPs in 2017/2018.  Note that the 3.5 the BEA records for Trump was actually* 4.2%*, before they cooked the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth unrevised at 4.2 percent
> 
> GDP Expanded at 4.2% Rate in Second Quarter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BEA was founded by a conservative(Nixon), they are not partial to Obama.
> 
> 
> GDP: How Donald Trump's administration is spinning economic numbers
> 
> State of the Union 2020: Trump economic claims fact-check
Click to expand...

BEA is OBVIOUSLY biased in favor of Obama, as they consistently fix numbers to favor him.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce. You're nothing more than  a conspiracy theory chaser.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.
> 
> Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
Click to expand...



It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place. 

You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass

If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.

.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump inherited a growing economy. He did nothing to grow it. That's a fact and no protection has any credible information that disputes it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Before BEA changed their numbers, to keep Obama from being shown as the economic failure that he was, the 2016 GDPs sunk, quarter after quarter.  I've been posting those charts for years now.
> 
> The truth is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Obama's 2016 GDPs were sinking and dreadfully low.  Trump took the sinking economy and grew it into the impressive one it is today.
> 
> Even the current Obama-friendly BEA doesn't hide entirely Obama's lousy record, in his last chance years (2015-2016) and the Trump recovery and impressive GDPs in 2017/2018.  Note that the 3.5 the BEA records for Trump was actually* 4.2%*, before they cooked the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth unrevised at 4.2 percent
> 
> GDP Expanded at 4.2% Rate in Second Quarter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BEA was founded by a conservative(Nixon), they are not partial to Obama.
> 
> 
> GDP: How Donald Trump's administration is spinning economic numbers
> 
> State of the Union 2020: Trump economic claims fact-check
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BEA is OBVIOUSLY biased in favor of Obama, as they consistently fix numbers to favor him.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. And you've yet to prove otherwise. And Obama is not in office any longer. 

No need to favor him.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce. You're nothing more than  a conspiracy theory chaser.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.
> 
> Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.

ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.

You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump inherited a growing economy. He did nothing to grow it. That's a fact and no protection has any credible information that disputes it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Before BEA changed their numbers, to keep Obama from being shown as the economic failure that he was, the 2016 GDPs sunk, quarter after quarter.  I've been posting those charts for years now.
> 
> The truth is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Obama's 2016 GDPs were sinking and dreadfully low.  Trump took the sinking economy and grew it into the impressive one it is today.
> 
> Even the current Obama-friendly BEA doesn't hide entirely Obama's lousy record, in his last chance years (2015-2016) and the Trump recovery and impressive GDPs in 2017/2018.  Note that the 3.5 the BEA records for Trump was actually* 4.2%*, before they cooked the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth unrevised at 4.2 percent
> 
> GDP Expanded at 4.2% Rate in Second Quarter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BEA was founded by a conservative(Nixon), they are not partial to Obama.
> 
> 
> GDP: How Donald Trump's administration is spinning economic numbers
> 
> State of the Union 2020: Trump economic claims fact-check
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BEA is OBVIOUSLY biased in favor of Obama, as they consistently fix numbers to favor him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. And you've yet to prove otherwise. And Obama is not in office any longer.
> 
> No need to favor him.
Click to expand...

FALSE!  I most certainly HAVE proven that the BEA fixes their numbers to favor Obama, and diminish Trump.  I've BEEN doing it for years, by posting the BEA GDP bar graphs which show all the changes they made favoring Obama and diminishing Trump.

Those are the kind of deviations that have a specific purpose to them, not occur naturally.


----------



## Jitss617




----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump inherited a growing economy. He did nothing to grow it. That's a fact and no protection has any credible information that disputes it.
> 
> 
> 
> FALSE!  Before BEA changed their numbers, to keep Obama from being shown as the economic failure that he was, the 2016 GDPs sunk, quarter after quarter.  I've been posting those charts for years now.
> 
> The truth is exactly the OPPOSITE of what you're saying. Obama's 2016 GDPs were sinking and dreadfully low.  Trump took the sinking economy and grew it into the impressive one it is today.
> 
> Even the current Obama-friendly BEA doesn't hide entirely Obama's lousy record, in his last chance years (2015-2016) and the Trump recovery and impressive GDPs in 2017/2018.  Note that the 3.5 the BEA records for Trump was actually* 4.2%*, before they cooked the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. second-quarter GDP growth unrevised at 4.2 percent
> 
> GDP Expanded at 4.2% Rate in Second Quarter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The BEA was founded by a conservative(Nixon), they are not partial to Obama.
> 
> 
> GDP: How Donald Trump's administration is spinning economic numbers
> 
> State of the Union 2020: Trump economic claims fact-check
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BEA is OBVIOUSLY biased in favor of Obama, as they consistently fix numbers to favor him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. And you've yet to prove otherwise. And Obama is not in office any longer.
> 
> No need to favor him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FALSE!  I most certainly HAVE proven that the BEA fixes their numbers to favor Obama, and diminish Trump.  I've BEEN doing it for years, by posting the BEA GDP bar graphs which show all the changes they made favoring Obama and diminishing Trump.
> 
> Those are the kind of deviations that have a specific purpose to them, not occur naturally.
Click to expand...

 
Not false at all. You likely didn't fact check them. 

You have ODS, and personally favor Trump to the point of being a cultist.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce. You're nothing more than  a conspiracy theory chaser.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.
> 
> Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
Click to expand...




protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You dunce. You're nothing more than  a conspiracy theory chaser.
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.
> 
> Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
Click to expand...


Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.

All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!

How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?


They certainly are not victims.

What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.

He's no victim

How about the two presidents that signed AA into law

They were not victims.


How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?

He is no victim either, neither are his family.

I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.


For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.


----------



## IM2

Shut the fuck up protectionist. Your ass is stating factual untruths. Whites have not been hurt by AA because whites exclusively got AA from 1776-1965. And in fact they still do. The facts show that and until you can prove different, shut your fucking mouth. Poof is not you making claims. So show proof.

*OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!*


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> Not false at all. You likely didn't fact check them.
> 
> You have ODS, and personally favor Trump to the point of being a cultist.


Ha ha. "Fact check" them with whom ? Politifact, or some other Trump bash rag ?

You're the one who personally hates Trump, with TDS, to the point of being a cultist.  Trump has had tremendous success as president, and his approval rate is probably about 80%, right now.  The left wing media Gallup poll admits to 49% approval rate for Trump (as opposed to 46% Obama after 3 years), but that is almost entirely from Democrats and Independents. Republicans don't answer MSM polls. That why Hillary's numbers were so falsely reported. 

So the Gallup poll is about 20 % points off, and the number should be 69%. Then add at least another 6 points for the post-SOTU address bounce, sure to surface in the next polls, + another 5 % account for illegal alien poll response, the numbers which should be subtracted out, since they have no right to vote in elections or polls, or be here , period.   Voila, 80 %.  Or is that too low ?


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> Shut the fuck up protectionist. Your ass is stating factual untruths. Whites have not been hurt by AA because whites exclusively got AA from 1776-1965. And in fact they still do. The facts show that and until you can prove different, shut your fucking mouth. Poof is not you making claims. So show proof.


Your filthy mouth doesn't do anything here other than show you for the filthy racist pig that you are. I've already given you your _"proof",_ in something far better than the bullshit reports your lying, leftist rags spout out, masquerading as what you laughably call _"facts"._

I gave you proof in thousands of living bodies in places where AA is at work, racistly hiring minorities and women, at the exclusion of white males  - which of course, harms white females along with them (family members). I was even specific. I mentioned James A Haley VA Hospital in Tampa, FL, and Bay Pines Hospital in St Petersburg, FL, + the Tampa Bay Workforce Alliance Center in Tampa. Would you like their addresses, so you can GO THERE and SEE with your own eyes, what AA is doing.  Wanna walk in ?...and see how long you can go walking the miles of hallways, looking into clinics and offices, and seeing nothing but blacks, Hispanics, Indians (from India), a FEW white females, and no white males whatsoever.

THERE's your REAL PROOF, dumbass.  I've already told all this to you before, but you're either to shallowheaded to remember, or you're just the baldfaced, filthy liar you appear to be.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.


Oh, so white males hold over 70% of executive positions in America, do they ?  Hmm. Well how come these white male executives can't be found anywhere in the various workplaces that I mentioned in Post # 887 ?  How come we go in there FOR YEARS, and never spot any of these white male executives, that your so-called "facts" (lol) claim to be exist ?  Or ANY white males working there in ANY kind of job ?

1500 employees in just one (James A Haley VA Hospital) of these 3 workplaces I cited, and not a white male employee in sight.  Ge see for yourself. G'wan.

As for who might be offended by my calling them a victim, I don't give a rat's ass what they're offended by. I said they are all victims, just by methodology, and I say it again right now. And it doesn't matter if ALL whites have been victims or just very many of them have.  Either way, AA is malicious racist discrimination, that has hurt many millions of whites (and some other non-blacks), and you are a malicious, lowlife racist for supporting it.

As for the very rich white guys you spouted, I could post names of many indigent white guys, as well as some black multimillionaire and multibillionaires.

Top 10 Richest Blacks In America - RichestBlacks.com


----------



## Porter Rockwell

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.
> 
> Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Didn't get the memo ?  Leftists' former favorite catchphrase ("conspiracy theory") flaked away about a year ago.
> 
> Stop wasting USMB time by posting hot air jibberish, with no substance, sources, links, or anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
Click to expand...


I'm curious to your source of information.

*  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
*  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
*  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
*  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?

Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?

How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?

The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.

Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions? 

Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.

*  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_

Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses

The 2019 figures:

" _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."

Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses

You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.

So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers? 

*Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.





W


----------



## LuckyDuck

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.


----------



## deanrd

White Supremists


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LuckyDuck said:


> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
> As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.
Click to expand...


Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:

Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.

Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.  

There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:

Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ

I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.  

If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.  

There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

deanrd said:


> White Supremists



Just a little counter balance


----------



## MaryL

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.


Every cause needs villain. What better than Whites? The globalists are like say, fascism and Hitler. Hitler had the Jews. Globalist needs to rally all those non westerners onto a common cause...England, Sweden "NEEDS" multiculturalism they  didn't need or ask for, America gets sanctuary cities we didn't ask for...explain that to me again? Who is paying for this obvious contradiction? I am wondering how much this costs the international bankers and industrialist to spend to destroy coo-opt  international democracy and our culture? What is that worth? And what do they gain?


----------



## MaryL

I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.




Okay, let's investigate.  Let us start with the latest bankster with ties to the Israelis... the one who has vowed to buy the White House.  Let's start with Michael Bloomberg.  He is a member of the One World Council on Foreign Relations:

Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia

The Jewish community welcomes this power broker:

Is Michael Bloomberg good for Israel?

You don't REALLY want to investigate big money politics, do you?


----------



## LuckyDuck

Porter Rockwell said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
> As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
Click to expand...

You poor deluded soul.


----------



## MaryL

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's investigate.  Let us start with the latest bankster with ties to the Israelis... the one who has vowed to buy the White House.  Let's start with Michael Bloomberg.  He is a member of the One World Council on Foreign Relations:
> 
> Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish community welcomes this power broker:
> 
> Is Michael Bloomberg good for Israel?
> 
> You don't REALLY want to investigate big money politics, do you?
Click to expand...

I am good with that. I want to know who is driving the destruction of western culture and what is the profit in it. Because Stalin and Hitler just tried blunt force and whomever is driving this kudos, we notice. Hitler  and Stalin had names, and causes. These globalist are nameless and  run between the raindrops. Please sanctuary cities? No American voted for or approved it. We weren't asked and it wasn't on ballot. So how did they happen?  Ask yourself that...


----------



## LuckyDuck

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's investigate.  Let us start with the latest bankster with ties to the Israelis... the one who has vowed to buy the White House.  Let's start with Michael Bloomberg.  He is a member of the One World Council on Foreign Relations:
> 
> Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish community welcomes this power broker:
> 
> Is Michael Bloomberg good for Israel?
> 
> You don't REALLY want to investigate big money politics, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am good with that. I want to know who is driving the destruction of western culture and what is the profit in it. Because Stalin and Hitler just tried blunt force and whomever is driving this kudos, we notice. Hitler  and Stalin had names, and causes. These globalist are nameless and  run between the raindrops. Please sanctuary cities? No American voted for or approved it. We weren't asked and it wasn't on ballot. So how did they happen?  Ask yourself that...
Click to expand...

The name of the actual individual who's "billions" is funding the destruction of Europe and western society, is.    George Soros.  
Globalism (aka: The New World Order) and its free flow of people aim, is his project and he's paying out massive amounts to those who help him, including the political puppets in the European Union.


----------



## LuckyDuck

deanrd said:


> White Supremists


Nah.  Just an ignorant "individual" with no firearms experience and a fool behind the lens, wanting to video what would happen to her.


----------



## katsteve2012

Porter Rockwell said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
> 
> 
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's wrong? It bothers you when your "stories" are questioned?
> 
> You should stop wasting board space with conspiracy theories and whining about AA "ruining your life"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
Click to expand...



In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples

Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men

As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.

As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.

I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"

What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.

As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.

I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".

Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i


Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management. 

And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so white males hold over 70% of executive positions in America, do they ?  Hmm. Well how come these white male executives can't be found anywhere in the various workplaces that I mentioned in Post # 887 ?  How come we go in there FOR YEARS, and never spot any of these white male executives, that your so-called "facts" (lol) claim to be exist ?  Or ANY white males working there in ANY kind of job ?
> 
> 1500 employees in just one (James A Haley VA Hospital) of these 3 workplaces I cited, and not a white male employee in sight.  Ge see for yourself. G'wan.
> 
> As for who might be offended by my calling them a victim, I don't give a rat's ass what they're offended by. I said they are all victims, just by methodology, and I say it again right now. And it doesn't matter if ALL whites have been victims or just very many of them have.  Either way, AA is malicious racist discrimination, that has hurt many millions of whites (and some other non-blacks), and you are a malicious, lowlife racist for supporting it.
> 
> As for the very rich white guys you spouted, I could post names of many indigent white guys, as well as some black multimillionaire and multibillionaires.
> 
> Top 10 Richest Blacks In America - RichestBlacks.com
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO!. So now you're suddenly backpedaling from "All whites since the 1960's being victims of AA, to A LOT'?

Apparantly now you understand how mentally impaired that statement made you appear to be.

Why are you basing your entire observation of the racial makeup of the general work force on VA hospitals?

Do you live there?

The work force in America  is made up of  more than "VA hospitals", you imbecile.

Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies average upper management teams IN AMERICA are typically 70 to 75% white males.

Look it up.

That includes directors, vice presidents, and even middle managers. In case you didn't know it, they are  considered "executives"

In the 1960"s that percentage was far higher, because white females were not as common in those types of positions prior to AA.

As for the "VERY wealthy, white guys that I pointed out, and it was only just a few, my point was that they collectively represent a far  higher percentage than any other demographic in America with 76% of millionaires in Anerica being white.

I doubt that any of them are "victims", nor do I think that the black 8% of Americas millionaires has had any effect on the well being of the 76%,  of whites who are millionaires.

Nor has that 8% affected a nobody like you.

Breakdown of U.S. millionaires by race | Statista


And who said there aren't any indigent white guys out there?

YOU, are apparently one of them.

They exist in all races, stupid.

Next, you will likely vomit some nonsense like the wealthy blacks from your link, are wealthy because some poor schlub like you got the shaft.


SDMGDH

You are a nutcase.


----------



## IM2

Jews are not a race and its time  for white supremacists to understand that.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LuckyDuck said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
> As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
Click to expand...


I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!


----------



## Porter Rockwell

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's investigate.  Let us start with the latest bankster with ties to the Israelis... the one who has vowed to buy the White House.  Let's start with Michael Bloomberg.  He is a member of the One World Council on Foreign Relations:
> 
> Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish community welcomes this power broker:
> 
> Is Michael Bloomberg good for Israel?
> 
> You don't REALLY want to investigate big money politics, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am good with that. I want to know who is driving the destruction of western culture and what is the profit in it. Because Stalin and Hitler just tried blunt force and whomever is driving this kudos, we notice. Hitler  and Stalin had names, and causes. These globalist are nameless and  run between the raindrops. Please sanctuary cities? No American voted for or approved it. We weren't asked and it wasn't on ballot. So how did they happen?  Ask yourself that...
Click to expand...



I now how it happened because I worked on the court case that helped make it law.  

It began in the 1990s when local sheriffs refused to enforce the Brady Bill.  The whole matter ended up in the United States Supreme Court.  The high Court ruled that, under the _anti- commandeering doctrine_, state and local governments cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws.  

I'm sure the people wanting Second Amendment Sanctuary Cities will appreciate the law when they are the "_illegals_" of the day.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

LuckyDuck said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's investigate.  Let us start with the latest bankster with ties to the Israelis... the one who has vowed to buy the White House.  Let's start with Michael Bloomberg.  He is a member of the One World Council on Foreign Relations:
> 
> Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish community welcomes this power broker:
> 
> Is Michael Bloomberg good for Israel?
> 
> You don't REALLY want to investigate big money politics, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am good with that. I want to know who is driving the destruction of western culture and what is the profit in it. Because Stalin and Hitler just tried blunt force and whomever is driving this kudos, we notice. Hitler  and Stalin had names, and causes. These globalist are nameless and  run between the raindrops. Please sanctuary cities? No American voted for or approved it. We weren't asked and it wasn't on ballot. So how did they happen?  Ask yourself that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The name of the actual individual who's "billions" is funding the destruction of Europe and western society, is.    George Soros.
> Globalism (aka: The New World Order) and its free flow of people aim, is his project and he's paying out massive amounts to those who help him, including the political puppets in the European Union.
Click to expand...


He is the head honcho, but gets a lot of funding from other billionaires like Bloomberg, Biden, and other globalists.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

katsteve2012 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
Click to expand...



You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.

I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.

Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)   

My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.


----------



## katsteve2012

Porter Rockwell said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.
> 
> I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.
> 
> Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)
> 
> My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.
Click to expand...


Actually San Diego, California had a huge amount of  double digit growth from the 1940's all of the way through the 1970's.

It was a military town, and thousands of service men came back and made it their permanent home after WW2, Korea, and Vietnam.

There ware shipyard jobs, aircraft factory jobs and a busy metropolitan downtown area, as well as new tract home suburbs all over the county.


It is now one of the top 10 largest cities in America.

I don't live there anymore, but I still visit frequently. Its gone from being a military town to more of an upscale coastal vacation spot. 

History of San Diego - Wikipedia


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
> As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
Click to expand...

Oh, the shame you must be living with!

.


----------



## protectionist

deanrd said:


> White Supremists


Might have started to make some kind of a point, if he hadn't flunked 6th grade spelling.


----------



## Correll

I think this thread, needs this.


----------



## protectionist

Porter Rockwell said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's investigate.  Let us start with the latest bankster with ties to the Israelis... the one who has vowed to buy the White House.  Let's start with Michael Bloomberg.  He is a member of the One World Council on Foreign Relations:
> 
> Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish community welcomes this power broker:
> 
> Is Michael Bloomberg good for Israel?
> 
> You don't REALLY want to investigate big money politics, do you?
Click to expand...

Bloomberg joins Hillary Clinton as being both a Democrat candidate for president, and a member of the CFR.

Hillary was a member of the CFR and also the Trilateral Commission, both globalist, anti-American outsourcing orgs, bad for American businesses, bad for the US economy, bad for America.

Both of these creeps are shallow opportunists only interested in what's good for themselves.  But what more would you expect from someone who, with her husband, are 2 of the worst serial killers in America, letting nothing stand in the way of their grabs for power.

Bloomberg is doing it with money, and if he were to get nominated, it would break all records for Democrat party hypocrisy.

Hillary and Bloomberg also have other similarities.  They both are in New York, both have no chance at getting elected president, and they're both about the same height.


----------



## protectionist

MaryL said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's investigate.  Let us start with the latest bankster with ties to the Israelis... the one who has vowed to buy the White House.  Let's start with Michael Bloomberg.  He is a member of the One World Council on Foreign Relations:
> 
> Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish community welcomes this power broker:
> 
> Is Michael Bloomberg good for Israel?
> 
> You don't REALLY want to investigate big money politics, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am good with that. I want to know who is driving the destruction of western culture and what is the profit in it. Because Stalin and Hitler just tried blunt force and whomever is driving this kudos, we notice. Hitler  and Stalin had names, and causes. These globalist are nameless and  run between the raindrops. Please sanctuary cities? No American voted for or approved it. We weren't asked and it wasn't on ballot. So how did they happen?  Ask yourself that...
Click to expand...

They happened by soulless Democrats realizing that the American people want nothing to do with their pandering to minorities, Muslim loonies, sex perverts er al, and that they must import foreigners to get the VOTES they need to ever get elected to anything.

Google Image Result for https://pics.me.me/its-really-simple-if-americans-wont-vote-democrat-then-i-36319691.png


----------



## protectionist

LuckyDuck said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep seeing this Boycott Israel stuff, Why? I would rather investigate  why international bankers and various industries are pushing globalism even though it hurts us locally  and destroys  true diversity.  Lets investigate that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, let's investigate.  Let us start with the latest bankster with ties to the Israelis... the one who has vowed to buy the White House.  Let's start with Michael Bloomberg.  He is a member of the One World Council on Foreign Relations:
> 
> Members of the Council on Foreign Relations - Wikipedia
> 
> The Jewish community welcomes this power broker:
> 
> Is Michael Bloomberg good for Israel?
> 
> You don't REALLY want to investigate big money politics, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am good with that. I want to know who is driving the destruction of western culture and what is the profit in it. Because Stalin and Hitler just tried blunt force and whomever is driving this kudos, we notice. Hitler  and Stalin had names, and causes. These globalist are nameless and  run between the raindrops. Please sanctuary cities? No American voted for or approved it. We weren't asked and it wasn't on ballot. So how did they happen?  Ask yourself that...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The name of the actual individual who's "billions" is funding the destruction of Europe and western society, is.    George Soros.
> Globalism (aka: The New World Order) and its free flow of people aim, is his project and he's paying out massive amounts to those who help him, including the political puppets in the European Union.
Click to expand...

True.  And he was the source of the funding for the now failed "caravans"; that sought to impose millions of illegal votes for Democrats, upon the US electoral system .


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> I told you.  The "conspiracy theory" line is finished.  And the way you defend AA so much, it's become apparent that it is what got you to get a good job, without it you'd be nothing but a street bum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
Click to expand...

That's a lie.  And it was refuted right here in this thread, in post # 887, where I informed IM2 (and YOU) of the obvious Affirmative Action discrimination at 2 VA hospitals + the Workforce Alliance center, all in the Tampa Bay area.

You know me, and you know what I have informed you of, only yesterday, in this very thread. You're lying, and not doing a very good job of it.

The only reason the Trump administration has not eradicated AA in America, is because they do the math regarding vote loss from minorities who are addicted to AA, like a drug, and who pathetically, can't exist without it.

I suspect that after the 2020 election, AA will fall fast.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so white males hold over 70% of executive positions in America, do they ?  Hmm. Well how come these white male executives can't be found anywhere in the various workplaces that I mentioned in Post # 887 ?  How come we go in there FOR YEARS, and never spot any of these white male executives, that your so-called "facts" (lol) claim to be exist ?  Or ANY white males working there in ANY kind of job ?
> 
> 1500 employees in just one (James A Haley VA Hospital) of these 3 workplaces I cited, and not a white male employee in sight.  Ge see for yourself. G'wan.
> 
> As for who might be offended by my calling them a victim, I don't give a rat's ass what they're offended by. I said they are all victims, just by methodology, and I say it again right now. And it doesn't matter if ALL whites have been victims or just very many of them have.  Either way, AA is malicious racist discrimination, that has hurt many millions of whites (and some other non-blacks), and you are a malicious, lowlife racist for supporting it.
> 
> As for the very rich white guys you spouted, I could post names of many indigent white guys, as well as some black multimillionaire and multibillionaires.
> 
> Top 10 Richest Blacks In America - RichestBlacks.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!. So now you're suddenly backpedaling from "All whites since the 1960's being victims of AA, to A LOT'?
> 
> Apparantly now you understand how mentally impaired that statement made you appear to be.
> 
> Why are you basing your entire observation of the racial makeup of the general work force on VA hospitals?
> 
> Do you live there?
> 
> The work force in America  is made up of  more than "VA hospitals", you imbecile.
> 
> Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies average upper management teams IN AMERICA are typically 70 to 75% white males.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> That includes directors, vice presidents, and even middle managers. In case you didn't know it, they are  considered "executives"
> 
> In the 1960"s that percentage was far higher, because white females were not as common in those types of positions prior to AA.
> 
> As for the "VERY wealthy, white guys that I pointed out, and it was only just a few, my point was that they collectively represent a far  higher percentage than any other demographic in America with 76% of millionaires in Anerica being white.
> 
> I doubt that any of them are "victims", nor do I think that the black 8% of Americas millionaires has had any effect on the well being of the 76%,  of whites who are millionaires.
> 
> Nor has that 8% affected a nobody like you.
> 
> Breakdown of U.S. millionaires by race | Statista
> 
> 
> And who said there aren't any indigent white guys out there?
> 
> YOU, are apparently one of them.
> 
> They exist in all races, stupid.
> 
> Next, you will likely vomit some nonsense like the wealthy blacks from your link, are wealthy because some poor schlub like you got the shaft.
> 
> 
> SDMGDH
> 
> You are a nutcase.
Click to expand...

I looked at my post that you quoted, and I don't see the words "A LOT".  So what is this"backpedaling" you speak of ?  I backpedaled nothing, whatsoever.

In fact, in my post you quoted, I reiterated that since AA has been around, ALL whites have been victimized by it.

Some people have to be told twice.  

I also never said I was basing my entire observation of the racial makeup of the whole workforce on VA hospitals.  YOU said that, Mr Incompetent Strawman.  I simply pointed to 3 very illustrative examples.

I would feel pretty safe though, if I were to bet that all the VA hospitals in America, in cities with ample populations of minorities, are just like the ones I mentioned.

I could mention many more examples, but there's no need to go through all that trouble.  This is a clear cut very obvious scenario, that you simply choose to lie about, because you know you bear guilt as a supporter of this 42 state disgrace, and as such, you're ashamed of yourself.

Rather than admit you've been wrong, and a racist hypocrite, you choose to try to deflect/smother what you know to be true, by creating a false picture of not only employment, but also college enrollments, financial aid, business loans, etc.

You're 100% fake and a buffoon, with very few posters in this forum falling for your pitiful drivel.  Stop posting and learn how to play the guitar.

Maybe after 10 years or so, and lots of lessons, you'll become able to not only play the guitar, but also the harmonica, mandolin, and violin/fiddle, like me.  I might even let you rosin my bow for me, if you're good enough to do that.


----------



## protectionist

katsteve2012 said:


> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so white males hold over 70% of executive positions in America, do they ?  Hmm. Well how come these white male executives can't be found anywhere in the various workplaces that I mentioned in Post # 887 ?  How come we go in there FOR YEARS, and never spot any of these white male executives, that your so-called "facts" (lol) claim to be exist ?  Or ANY white males working there in ANY kind of job ?
> 
> 1500 employees in just one (James A Haley VA Hospital) of these 3 workplaces I cited, and not a white male employee in sight.  Ge see for yourself. G'wan.
> 
> As for who might be offended by my calling them a victim, I don't give a rat's ass what they're offended by. I said they are all victims, just by methodology, and I say it again right now. And it doesn't matter if ALL whites have been victims or just very many of them have.  Either way, AA is malicious racist discrimination, that has hurt many millions of whites (and some other non-blacks), and you are a malicious, lowlife racist for supporting it.
> 
> As for the very rich white guys you spouted, I could post names of many indigent white guys, as well as some black multimillionaire and multibillionaires.
> 
> Top 10 Richest Blacks In America - RichestBlacks.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!. So now you're suddenly backpedaling from "All whites since the 1960's being victims of AA, to A LOT'?
> 
> Apparantly now you understand how mentally impaired that statement made you appear to be.
> 
> Why are you basing your entire observation of the racial makeup of the general work force on VA hospitals?
> 
> Do you live there?
> 
> The work force in America  is made up of  more than "VA hospitals", you imbecile.
> 
> Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies average upper management teams IN AMERICA are typically 70 to 75% white males.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> That includes directors, vice presidents, and even middle managers. In case you didn't know it, they are  considered "executives"
> 
> In the 1960"s that percentage was far higher, because white females were not as common in those types of positions prior to AA.
> 
> As for the "VERY wealthy, white guys that I pointed out, and it was only just a few, my point was that they collectively represent a far  higher percentage than any other demographic in America with 76% of millionaires in Anerica being white.
> 
> I doubt that any of them are "victims", nor do I think that the black 8% of Americas millionaires has had any effect on the well being of the 76%,  of whites who are millionaires.
> 
> Nor has that 8% affected a nobody like you.
> 
> Breakdown of U.S. millionaires by race | Statista
> 
> 
> And who said there aren't any indigent white guys out there?
> 
> YOU, are apparently one of them.
> 
> They exist in all races, stupid.
> 
> Next, you will likely vomit some nonsense like the wealthy blacks from your link, are wealthy because some poor schlub like you got the shaft.
> 
> 
> SDMGDH
> 
> You are a nutcase.
Click to expand...

"Look it up". HA HA HA.

Notice how liberals are so programmed into how they do things, they can't see outside themselves to know what robots they are.

Earth to katstupe:. I've BEEN looking it up for years and decades.   I don't need MSM concocted, fake news numbers. I, and everyone else, knows what's going on with Affirmative Action, and all the sorry, lost souls like you, who without it, would be riding on the back of a garbage truck.

We know it by what we see in front of us, year in and year out, and in various cities and states across the country.  We don't need brainwashed saps like you, or to be fed a continuous supply of numbers for this or that, designed to foster one agenda after another.

We have the true and substantial source of information available to us - the REAL WORLD.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
> As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
Click to expand...


You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
> As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
Click to expand...


White supremacist?  I don't really want to reign supreme above you; I'd prefer to live at least 50 miles from you.  Son?  Okay, gramps... if you say so.

I'm only an example of *YOUR *problem.  Think of me as the anti-plumber:  I don't take no shit and I don't give a shit.  

Every time I walk out the door and find fewer and fewer people that speak the same language I do, came from a similar culture, and have the same values, I'm reminded that there IS a subtle form of genocide going on.  Many times my own race participates in their own demise, but genocide it is.  Dude, if I listened to Satan, you be up shit creek without a paddle.  I did once pay attention to you and read the book online that you told me about:  _The Camp of the Saints_.  If any of you do think in terms of race and you like fiction IM2 turned me on to a novel that I'd never read before.  I don't know why he suggested I read it, but it would inspire those of a real racial bent.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mortimer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
> As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
Click to expand...



Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them, 


you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.


THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...


well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.


SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to break this to you, Hitler, but between IQ tests and performance in colleges and universities, Asians are intellectually superior to whites.  Thus, based upon your lower IQ statement, you and those of your ilk, are the creatures.
> As for your Bible reference.....The Old Testament came from the Hebrews in the area of current Israel and who were Middle-Eastern and they, and Jesus (a Nazarene), who was also a Hebrew, had olive-skin, black/dark brown hair and dark eyes.  They weren't as those like you seem to think and depict, a sandy-haired, blue eyed, white guy, unless the woman who was pregnant with him, had an affair with some Nordic traveler.
> Also, I hate to break it to you, but we originated out of Africa and all Europeans, even you, have some percentage of Neanderthal DNA in us.  If you doubt this, take a DNA test.  You aren't entirely one species.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
Click to expand...



It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.

No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.

With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists. 

When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs. 

I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.

Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
Click to expand...



Spencer is spending family money? I did not know that. Even I assumed that the biggest name recognition white supremacist  in the country would be able to get some money from his mailing lists.


From lib media outlets if nothing else.


Are you sure of your information on that? If so they are even more pathetic than even I realized.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer is spending family money? I did not know that. Even I assumed that the biggest name recognition white supremacist  in the country would be able to get some money from his mailing lists.
> 
> 
> From lib media outlets if nothing else.
> 
> 
> Are you sure of your information on that? If so they are even more pathetic than even I realized.
Click to expand...


He might be getting some donations from outside sources, but based on what?  Does he have books, videos, a podcast, a YouTube channel or viable organization?  I realize I'm not looking, but I do know in my own area that there is an active antifa group, the NAACP, black Democrats pushing their racial agenda, and we have Stacey Abrams.  

WHO do these white groups have?  Is there a voice, other than National Socialists, advocating a return to our foundational principles?   I'm not talking about groups advocating more laws to oppose even more laws.  My default is that I oppose any legislation that increases the size, power and / or scope of government.  I guess I'd expect that from any _"white supremacy_" organization.  They might be out there, but I've never met any of them - which is unusual since the head honcho of black supremacy here assures me that I'm a white supremacist.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie.  And it was refuted right here in this thread, in post # 887, where I informed IM2 (and YOU) of the obvious Affirmative Action discrimination at 2 VA hospitals + the Workforce Alliance center, all in the Tampa Bay area.
> 
> You know me, and you know what I have informed you of, only yesterday, in this very thread. You're lying, and not doing a very good job of it.
> 
> The only reason the Trump administration has not eradicated AA in America, is because they do the math regarding vote loss from minorities who are addicted to AA, like a drug, and who pathetically, can't exist without it.
> 
> I suspect that after the 2020 election, AA will fall fast.
Click to expand...


Nope. Its n


protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lie.  And it was refuted right here in this thread, in post # 887, where I informed IM2 (and YOU) of the obvious Affirmative Action discrimination at 2 VA hospitals + the Workforce Alliance center, all in the Tampa Bay area.
> 
> You know me, and you know what I have informed you of, only yesterday, in this very thread. You're lying, and not doing a very good job of it.
> 
> The only reason the Trump administration has not eradicated AA in America, is because they do the math regarding vote loss from minorities who are addicted to AA, like a drug, and who pathetically, can't exist without it.
> 
> I suspect that after the 2020 election, AA will fall fast.
Click to expand...


The only lies that you THINK you read are the posts that refute the nonsense that you attempt to pass off as truth.

For the 100th time, what happens in Tampa Florida at ONE VA hospital is not indicative of the ENTIRE workforce in America, you loon.

Tampa Florida is ONE city in ONE state out of an entire country, and what happens there does not indicate what is happening nationally.

If you were able to truthfully state that you've been to 10 different VA hospitals in different regions and saw a 95% black workforce, you might be considered to be almost  credible.

But, face it. You ARE NOT. And it's  obvious, to any sane, lucid individual that you are just a chicken little, crying wolf nutjob that needs to STFU.

And as far as tRUMP goes, if I were you, I would be much more  concerned about him and his cronies gutting Medicare, Medicaid and social security to pay for the tax cuts that were initiated for corporations than AA.

Without those benefits, or "entitlements" as your self centered heroes call them, those like you would be eating garbage out of dumpsters to survive, and would then die in the street like stray animals.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so white males hold over 70% of executive positions in America, do they ?  Hmm. Well how come these white male executives can't be found anywhere in the various workplaces that I mentioned in Post # 887 ?  How come we go in there FOR YEARS, and never spot any of these white male executives, that your so-called "facts" (lol) claim to be exist ?  Or ANY white males working there in ANY kind of job ?
> 
> 1500 employees in just one (James A Haley VA Hospital) of these 3 workplaces I cited, and not a white male employee in sight.  Ge see for yourself. G'wan.
> 
> As for who might be offended by my calling them a victim, I don't give a rat's ass what they're offended by. I said they are all victims, just by methodology, and I say it again right now. And it doesn't matter if ALL whites have been victims or just very many of them have.  Either way, AA is malicious racist discrimination, that has hurt many millions of whites (and some other non-blacks), and you are a malicious, lowlife racist for supporting it.
> 
> As for the very rich white guys you spouted, I could post names of many indigent white guys, as well as some black multimillionaire and multibillionaires.
> 
> Top 10 Richest Blacks In America - RichestBlacks.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!. So now you're suddenly backpedaling from "All whites since the 1960's being victims of AA, to A LOT'?
> 
> Apparantly now you understand how mentally impaired that statement made you appear to be.
> 
> Why are you basing your entire observation of the racial makeup of the general work force on VA hospitals?
> 
> Do you live there?
> 
> The work force in America  is made up of  more than "VA hospitals", you imbecile.
> 
> Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies average upper management teams IN AMERICA are typically 70 to 75% white males.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> That includes directors, vice presidents, and even middle managers. In case you didn't know it, they are  considered "executives"
> 
> In the 1960"s that percentage was far higher, because white females were not as common in those types of positions prior to AA.
> 
> As for the "VERY wealthy, white guys that I pointed out, and it was only just a few, my point was that they collectively represent a far  higher percentage than any other demographic in America with 76% of millionaires in Anerica being white.
> 
> I doubt that any of them are "victims", nor do I think that the black 8% of Americas millionaires has had any effect on the well being of the 76%,  of whites who are millionaires.
> 
> Nor has that 8% affected a nobody like you.
> 
> Breakdown of U.S. millionaires by race | Statista
> 
> 
> And who said there aren't any indigent white guys out there?
> 
> YOU, are apparently one of them.
> 
> They exist in all races, stupid.
> 
> Next, you will likely vomit some nonsense like the wealthy blacks from your link, are wealthy because some poor schlub like you got the shaft.
> 
> 
> SDMGDH
> 
> You are a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I looked at my post that you quoted, and I don't see the words "A LOT".  So what is this"backpedaling" you speak of ?  I backpedaled nothing, whatsoever.
> 
> In fact, in my post you quoted, I reiterated that since AA has been around, ALL whites have been victimized by it.
> 
> Some people have to be told twice.
> 
> I also never said I was basing my entire observation of the racial makeup of the whole workforce on VA hospitals.  YOU said that, Mr Incompetent Strawman.  I simply pointed to 3 very illustrative examples.
> 
> I would feel pretty safe though, if I were to bet that all the VA hospitals in America, in cities with ample populations of minorities, are just like the ones I mentioned.
> 
> I could mention many more examples, but there's no need to go through all that trouble.  This is a clear cut very obvious scenario, that you simply choose to lie about, because you know you bear guilt as a supporter of this 42 state disgrace, and as such, you're ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Rather than admit you've been wrong, and a racist hypocrite, you choose to try to deflect/smother what you know to be true, by creating a false picture of not only employment, but also college enrollments, financial aid, business loans, etc.
> 
> You're 100% fake and a buffoon, with very few posters in this forum falling for your pitiful drivel.  Stop posting and learn how to play the guitar.
> 
> Maybe after 10 years or so, and lots of lessons, you'll become able to not only play the guitar, but also the harmonica, mandolin, and violin/fiddle, like me.  I might even let you rosin my bow for me, if you're good enough to do that.
Click to expand...



You are right. Some people need to be told twice. Here is what you quoted:

"As for who might be offended by my calling them a victim, I don't give a rat's ass what they're offended by. I said they are all victims, just by methodology, and I say it again right now. _*And it doesn't matter if ALL whites have been victims or just very many of them have"*_
_
"_Very many"....as in A LOT. What's the difference? Spoon feeding your senility is getting old. 

As far as the rest of you infantile whinefest, go ahead and mention "other examples" and they will promptly be shown to yet more figments of your imagination. What happened to you as a failure decades ago is your problem, not anyone elses. 

The fact that you continue to point to the VA hospital as your measure of proof in addition to your being a perpetual victim of something that happened decades ago, is evidence enough that you are nothing but a bitter old fool who feels sorry for himself and wants sympathy.

As for college admission, financial aid, and employment statistic , you cannot and have not proven that blacks have been displacing whites at the imaginary rate of "hundreds of millions since the 1960's"

That is some made up bullshit by you, and your shrill histrionics when challenged on such foolishness proves it in every post that you put up.


If I ever happen to come back to Florida, I may deposit a few coins in your tin cup if I see you playing a violin on a street corner.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of what you're saying is inaccurate.  Let us begin here:
> 
> Asians include Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese.  The fact of the matter is, those countries are ALL more than 90 percent homogeneous.  Japan claims to be the most racially pure country in the world.  Those people who are homogeneous tend to have higher IQs than those who come from mixed race societies.  Since there are more Chinese in China than there are white people on the face of the earth - and 91.5 percent of China is Han Chinese, I'd expect them (like Japanese Koreans 98 plus percent homogeneous) to score better than the mixed race Americans.
> 
> Secondly, Jesus was* NOT *olive skinned and eye witness accounts dispute that.  If you studied the life of Jesus, in his missing years (years unaccounted for in the Bible), you can pick up on secular history showing that Jesus was with his great uncle in Britain, Joseph of Arimathea, showing that Jesus' great uncle was an Anglo Saxon.
> 
> There are a lot of people with a vested interest in trying to hide secular history in order to justify propping up beliefs that science and archaeology have factually refuted.  While I did not fully vet this site personally, it seems to contain a brief factual recollection of the facts:
> 
> Joseph of Arimathea and the Missing Years of Christ
> 
> I don't know the DNA of most people, but there seems to be this mistaken belief that if you have so much as a drop of non-white blood in you that you are not white.  Talk about reverse discrimination!  If you have any non-white blood in you, then you should reject your racial heritage and embrace that of being a Neanderthal, a third worlder, and - if I'm understanding your line of reasoning... we must be descendants of monkeys.
> 
> If any of what you say were even remotely true, different branches of science, archaeology, forensics, etc. would not have conflicting opinions.  Using history as a measuring rod, the most popular views (like the one you're promoting) are the ones most likely to be proven false in time.
> 
> There is a better standard for measuring the white people, but that is not the subject of the OP.  They do have a history and a destiny - no matter how hard modernists try to sweep it under the rug and wage a subtle war of cultural racial and ethnic genocide against them.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
Click to expand...

You are a white supremacist, so don't try telling the lie that they don't exist.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer is spending family money? I did not know that. Even I assumed that the biggest name recognition white supremacist  in the country would be able to get some money from his mailing lists.
> 
> 
> From lib media outlets if nothing else.
> 
> 
> Are you sure of your information on that? If so they are even more pathetic than even I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might be getting some donations from outside sources, but based on what?  Does he have books, videos, a podcast, a YouTube channel or viable organization?  I realize I'm not looking, but I do know in my own area that there is an active antifa group, the NAACP, black Democrats pushing their racial agenda, and we have Stacey Abrams.
> 
> WHO do these white groups have?  Is there a voice, other than National Socialists, advocating a return to our foundational principles?   I'm not talking about groups advocating more laws to oppose even more laws.  My default is that I oppose any legislation that increases the size, power and / or scope of government.  I guess I'd expect that from any _"white supremacy_" organization.  They might be out there, but I've never met any of them - which is unusual since the head honcho of black supremacy here assures me that I'm a white supremacist.
Click to expand...


Whites have almost every institution at every level of government. You've never met a white supremacist but you post shitloads of white supremacist ideology.


----------



## MaryL

Anyone here ever seen or had a "interaction" with a actual proven card caring "white supremacist"? I've been assaulted , punched, robbed and had a hell of lot of negative interactions with black MALES  and I'm supposed to worry about "white supremacists"? Why?


----------



## katsteve2012

Porter Rockwell said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not that I "defend AA" so much, as I disagree with your endless whining that it ruined yours or anyone else's life, and the outright lies that you tell about "hundreds of millions of white people being hurt by it". If you were passed over, you likely were not good enough in the first place.
> 
> You have never justified how you arrived at such ridiculous numbers, you just pulled them out of your ass
> 
> If your method of reasoning was the same then as it is now, you shouldn't have been allowed to teach in a preschool.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.
> 
> I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.
> 
> Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)
> 
> My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.
Click to expand...


Just out of curiosity, what general geographic region is this in?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a white supremacist, so don't try telling the lie that they don't exist.
Click to expand...




IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a white supremacist, so don't try telling the lie that they don't exist.
Click to expand...


Everybody that refuses to affix their lips to your ass is a white supremacist, but if people felt like I do, they are in hiding.  I don't currently know any.  That says a lot for a guy that grew up working all around the old time movers and shakers.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer is spending family money? I did not know that. Even I assumed that the biggest name recognition white supremacist  in the country would be able to get some money from his mailing lists.
> 
> 
> From lib media outlets if nothing else.
> 
> 
> Are you sure of your information on that? If so they are even more pathetic than even I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might be getting some donations from outside sources, but based on what?  Does he have books, videos, a podcast, a YouTube channel or viable organization?  I realize I'm not looking, but I do know in my own area that there is an active antifa group, the NAACP, black Democrats pushing their racial agenda, and we have Stacey Abrams.
> 
> WHO do these white groups have?  Is there a voice, other than National Socialists, advocating a return to our foundational principles?   I'm not talking about groups advocating more laws to oppose even more laws.  My default is that I oppose any legislation that increases the size, power and / or scope of government.  I guess I'd expect that from any _"white supremacy_" organization.  They might be out there, but I've never met any of them - which is unusual since the head honcho of black supremacy here assures me that I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites have almost every institution at every level of government. You've never met a white supremacist but you post shitloads of white supremacist ideology.
Click to expand...


That is absolute nonsense, not supported by a single fact.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer is spending family money? I did not know that. Even I assumed that the biggest name recognition white supremacist  in the country would be able to get some money from his mailing lists.
> 
> 
> From lib media outlets if nothing else.
> 
> 
> Are you sure of your information on that? If so they are even more pathetic than even I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might be getting some donations from outside sources, but based on what?  Does he have books, videos, a podcast, a YouTube channel or viable organization?  I realize I'm not looking, but I do know in my own area that there is an active antifa group, the NAACP, black Democrats pushing their racial agenda, and we have Stacey Abrams.
> 
> WHO do these white groups have?  Is there a voice, other than National Socialists, advocating a return to our foundational principles?   I'm not talking about groups advocating more laws to oppose even more laws.  My default is that I oppose any legislation that increases the size, power and / or scope of government.  I guess I'd expect that from any _"white supremacy_" organization.  They might be out there, but I've never met any of them - which is unusual since the head honcho of black supremacy here assures me that I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites have almost every institution at every level of government. You've never met a white supremacist but you post shitloads of white supremacist ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absolute nonsense, not supported by a single fact.
Click to expand...


It is supported by all the facts. In fact it's undeniable. You you aren't going to get to play the white victim card here. Nor do you get to post white supremacist bullshit then claim it doesn't exist. There are no black supremacists here boy, and that's another false equivalence used by white supremacists.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a white supremacist, so don't try telling the lie that they don't exist.
Click to expand...




katsteve2012 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.
> 
> I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.
> 
> Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)
> 
> My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what general geographic region is this in?
Click to expand...


35 miles


katsteve2012 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep on confirming your idiocy.  Of course, I've justified how hundreds of millions of white people have been hurt by Affirmative Action.  That's how many whites have lived in America since the 60s.
> 
> ALL whites in America who have lived here since the 60s have been victimized.  Either by the denial of things (jobs, promotions, college, etc), or simply the possibility of those denials.  Every white person has been victimized, just by the existence of AA.
> 
> You're the only person I know of who has trouble understanding that.  God, you are stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.
> 
> I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.
> 
> Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)
> 
> My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what general geographic region is this in?
Click to expand...



Gwinnett County, Georgia - Wikipedia

Note that in 2010 whites were just under 55 percent of the population.

https://statisticalatlas.com/county/Georgia/Gwinnett-County/Race-and-Ethnicity

Check it out.  Now they are about 40 percent.

Going back to 1990 this county had 320,971 whites to 18,175 blacks.  In twenty years we now have almost a million people living in this county compared to just over 340,000 only two decades ago.

previous post did not allow for editing.


----------



## katsteve2012

protectionist said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> protectionist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, so white males hold over 70% of executive positions in America, do they ?  Hmm. Well how come these white male executives can't be found anywhere in the various workplaces that I mentioned in Post # 887 ?  How come we go in there FOR YEARS, and never spot any of these white male executives, that your so-called "facts" (lol) claim to be exist ?  Or ANY white males working there in ANY kind of job ?
> 
> 1500 employees in just one (James A Haley VA Hospital) of these 3 workplaces I cited, and not a white male employee in sight.  Ge see for yourself. G'wan.
> 
> As for who might be offended by my calling them a victim, I don't give a rat's ass what they're offended by. I said they are all victims, just by methodology, and I say it again right now. And it doesn't matter if ALL whites have been victims or just very many of them have.  Either way, AA is malicious racist discrimination, that has hurt many millions of whites (and some other non-blacks), and you are a malicious, lowlife racist for supporting it.
> 
> As for the very rich white guys you spouted, I could post names of many indigent white guys, as well as some black multimillionaire and multibillionaires.
> 
> Top 10 Richest Blacks In America - RichestBlacks.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO!. So now you're suddenly backpedaling from "All whites since the 1960's being victims of AA, to A LOT'?
> 
> Apparantly now you understand how mentally impaired that statement made you appear to be.
> 
> Why are you basing your entire observation of the racial makeup of the general work force on VA hospitals?
> 
> Do you live there?
> 
> The work force in America  is made up of  more than "VA hospitals", you imbecile.
> 
> Fortune 500 and Fortune 1000 companies average upper management teams IN AMERICA are typically 70 to 75% white males.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> That includes directors, vice presidents, and even middle managers. In case you didn't know it, they are  considered "executives"
> 
> In the 1960"s that percentage was far higher, because white females were not as common in those types of positions prior to AA.
> 
> As for the "VERY wealthy, white guys that I pointed out, and it was only just a few, my point was that they collectively represent a far  higher percentage than any other demographic in America with 76% of millionaires in Anerica being white.
> 
> I doubt that any of them are "victims", nor do I think that the black 8% of Americas millionaires has had any effect on the well being of the 76%,  of whites who are millionaires.
> 
> Nor has that 8% affected a nobody like you.
> 
> Breakdown of U.S. millionaires by race | Statista
> 
> 
> And who said there aren't any indigent white guys out there?
> 
> YOU, are apparently one of them.
> 
> They exist in all races, stupid.
> 
> Next, you will likely vomit some nonsense like the wealthy blacks from your link, are wealthy because some poor schlub like you got the shaft.
> 
> 
> SDMGDH
> 
> You are a nutcase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Look it up". HA HA HA.
> 
> Notice how liberals are so programmed into how they do things, they can't see outside themselves to know what robots they are.
> 
> Earth to katstupe:. I've BEEN looking it up for years and decades.   I don't need MSM concocted, fake news numbers. I, and everyone else, knows what's going on with Affirmative Action, and all the sorry, lost souls like you, who without it, would be riding on the back of a garbage truck.
> 
> We know it by what we see in front of us, year in and year out, and in various cities and states across the country.  We don't need brainwashed saps like you, or to be fed a continuous supply of numbers for this or that, designed to foster one agenda after another.
> 
> We have the true and substantial source of information available to us - the REAL WORLD.
Click to expand...


I do live in the real world, you idiot. I lived in it when by default, a low achieving, mediocre bottom feeder like you would be placed over a more qualified non white person 100% of the time.....just because of an accident of birth.

So yes, ,"look it up", and instead of pulling fictitious talking points out of that empty space between your ears, and making up your own polls, and basing your stupid non arguments on what you see at the VA mental ward, and waiting for tRUMP to rescue you from your affirmative action derangement syndrome, pull your head out of your lazy shiftless ass, and look up a real  fact for once.

It is obviously much easier for you to let your imagined victimhood overrule whatever logic is left in your little pea brain.


----------



## IM2

I find it funny how a white man can talk about how whites nearing retirement are scared of being passed over for blacks when they are passing over blacks for promotions. Rockwell is mentally ill.


----------



## katsteve2012

Porter Rockwell said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a white supremacist, so don't try telling the lie that they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.
> 
> I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.
> 
> Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)
> 
> My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what general geographic region is this in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 35 miles
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep posting and validating your obvious ignorance with that lie.
> 
> All WHITES in America that have lived since the 60's? ROFLMAO!!
> 
> How about the fact that white males as a demographic hold the majority(over 70%) of executive positions in America IN SPITE of AA. Yet they account for 31%  of the population?
> 
> 
> They certainly are not victims.
> 
> What about your thread about the XFL? Their founder/owner is a white male billionaire.
> 
> He's no victim
> 
> How about the two presidents that signed AA into law
> 
> They were not victims.
> 
> 
> How about the alleged billionaire that you worship who won't show his taxes and  is currently in the white house?
> 
> 
> He is no victim either, neither are his family.
> 
> I would even bet that there are some white people in this forum who would object to you referring to them as "victims". of any kind.
> 
> 
> For you to say ALL white people who have lived since the 60's are victims of AA, verifies that you've proven nothing except that you have a very vivid imagination.....the kind that people are normally institutionalized for.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.
> 
> I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.
> 
> Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)
> 
> My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what general geographic region is this in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gwinnett County, Georgia - Wikipedia
> 
> Note that in 2010 whites were just under 55 percent of the population.
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/county/Georgia/Gwinnett-County/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> Check it out.  Now they are about 40 percent.
> 
> Going back to 1990 this county had 320,971 whites to 18,175 blacks.  In twenty years we now have almost a million people living in this county compared to just over 340,000 only two decades ago.
> 
> previous post did not allow for editing.
Click to expand...


Ok. I will take the time to look into the demographic history of it. But the growth sounds comparable to what I saw in California.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> I find it funny how a white man can talk about how whites nearing retirement are scared of being passed over for blacks when they are passing over blacks for promotions. Rockwell is mentally ill.



Dr. Phil or IM2Shill?  You are hardly in a position to judge mental fitness.  My posts don't have a damn thing to do with whites nearing retirement living in fear of being passed over by blacks for promotions. 

Your idiocy precedes you.  I stated that anyone who grew up in the 1960s and is now close to retirement witnessed the reverse discrimination, affirmative action, etc.  Those people don't need statistics.  Most honest ones have a horror story to tell.

It happened to me when I was younger.  That is why I picked professions wherein it would not be a factor.  But, most working stiffs know full well what was going on... subtle genocide.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

katsteve2012 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a white supremacist, so don't try telling the lie that they don't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.
> 
> I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.
> 
> Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)
> 
> My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what general geographic region is this in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 35 miles
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious to your source of information.
> 
> *  What, exactly, constitutes an executive position?
> *  Are you counting Jews among "whites?"
> *  How many executive positions and what percentage of the overall jobs do they represent?
> *  How many of these executive positions are controlled by billionaires?
> 
> Exactly how do you think billionaires like Michael Bloomberg keep making obscene amounts of money?
> 
> How many of these executive positions would you estimate are owned by billionaires and millionaires from old or foreign money?
> 
> The race deal is getting boring if we don't use some qualitative and quantitative analysis.
> 
> Since the 1960s, a lot of companies have come here from foreign countries.  Americans who grew up in the 1960s, forward have *nothing* to do with their control of money or jobs.  I can tell you that I worked for 3 Japanese companies and they only network with other Japanese companies.  I worked for one Japanese company that went as far as to even buy their warehouse supplies like tape and boxes from Japanese companies... and NO white ever got an executive position.  Some of those companies I have experience with are Sony, Makita, Byokane, Ricoh, etc.  How do Chinese and Japanese companies figure into these figures wherein whites make up 71 percent of the executive positions?
> 
> Foreign companies own 6 percent of all businesses in America outright.  Many of those businesses are multi-million dollar businesses with sizable numbers of foreign executives.  This would not count the ones they have a sizable investment and control in.
> 
> *  _African American-owned firms accounted for about 9% of the approximately 27.6 million U.S. businesses in 2012_
> 
> Top U.S. African American-Owned Businesses
> 
> The 2019 figures:
> 
> " _Minorities own an estimated 29 percent of classifiable businesses, which are growing at twice the rate of non-minority businesses. They employ more than 6.3 million Americans and generate over $1 trillion in revenue_."
> 
> Celebrating the rise of minority-owned businesses
> 
> You see how confusing these stats are?  Let's get on a level playing field here and get the facts.
> 
> So, let's ignore the number of businesses, billionaires, and high paid executive positions.  What about the rank and file workers?
> 
> *Most whites* in the United States that have worked between the late 1960s and are now reaching retirement age have a horror story of being passed over for a promotion, not hired at all, or laid off to make room for a black.  It's not racist to admit the truth.  It's the way it was and probably still is.  There are no government agencies or whites rights groups keeping a running tally (which is the white peoples fault.)  But, you'd be hard pressed to find someone in that era, if the truth be told, that did not know of someone that applied to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> W
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In a nutshell, that was a very long post. As far as what information I referenced, leaders of fortune 500 and fortune 1000 companies are what most business analysts  that I've known look to as a barometer for what is happening in corporate America. Here are an couple of examples
> 
> Fortune 500: 7 in 10 Senior Executives Are White Men
> 
> As far as how many are Jewish, I would guess that the majority count themselves as white on the census or how they identify.
> 
> As far as "most whites that have worked between the late 60"s until now, having a horror story" regarding being passed over to make room for blacks", ard you referring to MOST whites that you PERSONALLY know or are you including those that you do know.
> 
> I had my first job in 1968, which was a "rank and file job" as you call it, and even growing up in a so called progressive/liberal state like Cslifornia, there was no evidence that I saw in any walk of life there where blacks were displacing whites ar anywhere near s rate that was affecting "every white person who worked"
> 
> What I saw was a predominately white workforce and it was still a rarity to walk into a bank, a doctors office, or even the faculty lounge at a predominantly black school and see more than 2 or at the most, 3 blacks out of 10 people. It was even rare to see a black bus driver in a predominately black community or for that matter at all.
> 
> As far as the school system ar that time, in ALL of San Diego county, there were only 2 black secondary school principals and both were assigned to schools that had student bodies of over 90% black students. I know this, because my own father was one of them.
> 
> I traveled in 1969 out of California, all of the way up to Minnesota, and none of the 9 aunts and uncles on my mothers side were being placed in jobs over white people, and remembering their sentiments, that "not much had actually changed since Jim Crow was abolished in 1965".
> 
> Nothing that I have seen nor anyone that I know has seen since the late 60's remotely supports that "hundreds of millions of white people have been victimized by Affirmative Action "favoring blacks". If anything, white females have succeeded more because of affirmative action than any other demographic.
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...AhAB&usg=AOvVaw1I1xMl4pL6b-KUyPq-ata0&ampcf=1
> 
> 
> https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAOegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw2HT9kFPD8M5LorvcOpHb3i
> 
> 
> Based on my own work experience, I was an SVP of marketing  operations  for a technology company prior to retiring. I was there for almost 35 years and  1 of 2 blacks in managenent in a division with 6000 employees which was inclusive of entry level, middle and upper management.
> 
> And even blacks at the associate and intern level were not typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You live in one of those enclaves that didn't see much growth.  I live in what was the fastest growing couny in the United States in 1980. Whites were 83 percent of the population in the 1980 census.  Today, they are 49 percent of the county's residents and we are almost 5 times more populous over that time period.
> 
> I go to a medical facility with over 250 medical personnel.  I can fit all the whites into one minivan.  I worked for a company that had 53 employees.  Of those, only 7 were white and only two supervisors were white.  The government offices here are filled with Muslims and various other sundry foreigners and, for the first time since Reagan was elected, the county will swing Democrat.
> 
> Whites and many Jews do not count Jews as white.  They are actually descended from Asiatic Khazars (see the book The Thirteenth Tribe by  Arthur Koestler.)
> 
> My experiences were 180 degrees opposite of what you experienced.  So, maybe I should share some of our stats with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity, what general geographic region is this in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Gwinnett County, Georgia - Wikipedia
> 
> Note that in 2010 whites were just under 55 percent of the population.
> 
> https://statisticalatlas.com/county/Georgia/Gwinnett-County/Race-and-Ethnicity
> 
> Check it out.  Now they are about 40 percent.
> 
> Going back to 1990 this county had 320,971 whites to 18,175 blacks.  In twenty years we now have almost a million people living in this county compared to just over 340,000 only two decades ago.
> 
> previous post did not allow for editing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. I will take the time to look into the demographic history of it. But the growth sounds comparable to what I saw in California.
Click to expand...


My family left the L.A. area back in the 1960s when the riots began breaking out.  I was too young to remember most of it, but they had plenty to say - as did the few who stayed.  California is a blueprint for the future of America - and it's pretty damn scary if the truth be told.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor deluded soul.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a poor deluded soul for not wallowing in false guilt and self hatred.  How mighty left of you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a white supremacist, so don't try telling the lie that they don't exist.
Click to expand...




Kind of funny to see you talking so tough, when you ran from his two threads, like the rest of the libs did.


Almost like you are only talking shit, when you know that you won't have to back it up.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet when he started two threads, stating and defending his primary beliefs, and threw down the gauntlet to you lefties about them,
> 
> 
> you lefties, you included, by and large, ran and hid. Almost like you were afraid to face him.
> 
> 
> THe few lefties that tried, made fools of themselves. They tried. He destroyed them. Then all they had left was the most pathetic stonewalling and stupid games...
> 
> 
> well, you a lib, so you know what happens when you get suckered into actually defending your positions.
> 
> 
> SO, make sure to make your jibs, and your gotcha zingers, then run away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer is spending family money? I did not know that. Even I assumed that the biggest name recognition white supremacist  in the country would be able to get some money from his mailing lists.
> 
> 
> From lib media outlets if nothing else.
> 
> 
> Are you sure of your information on that? If so they are even more pathetic than even I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might be getting some donations from outside sources, but based on what?  Does he have books, videos, a podcast, a YouTube channel or viable organization?  I realize I'm not looking, but I do know in my own area that there is an active antifa group, the NAACP, black Democrats pushing their racial agenda, and we have Stacey Abrams.
> 
> WHO do these white groups have?  Is there a voice, other than National Socialists, advocating a return to our foundational principles?   I'm not talking about groups advocating more laws to oppose even more laws.  My default is that I oppose any legislation that increases the size, power and / or scope of government.  I guess I'd expect that from any _"white supremacy_" organization.  They might be out there, but I've never met any of them - which is unusual since the head honcho of black supremacy here assures me that I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites have almost every institution at every level of government. You've never met a white supremacist but you post shitloads of white supremacist ideology.
Click to expand...





Bill CLinton was white. He had the highest level of government. Was he a white supremacist? Or are you just full of shit?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> It may have been on this very thread, but it was one in which I stated my beliefs about why America was as it was - and turned out that the thread regarding our Christian founding was posted for discussion.  It was ultimately derailed by one man with a fragile ego and nothing to support his name calling and false allegations.
> 
> No matter what subject the left supposedly wants to talk about, once you address it, they want to change the subject.  In the instant case, the subject is supposedly a question about what white supremacy is.
> 
> With the exception of a very small number of people - and we're talking numbers so small that *ALL* of them combined in the United States could not fill a high school auditorium, there are no real white supremacists.
> 
> When El Chapo escaped prison, it was done via an elaborate tunnel system with a motorcycle for him to make it to a safe zone.  Contrast that to Wesley Gullet, a white supremacist gang leader in a prison back last August.  Gullet escapes prison, only to land up in the streets with no back up; no organization to whisk him off to safety and out of the immediate reach of LEOs.
> 
> I recently watched this documentary about some group called Atomwaffen Division with a leader named James Mason.  He's some kind of guru that's been around since he was 14.  He looked to be an older guy now and draws a government check, lives in government subsidized housing, and eats in soup kitchens.  These people have no leaders and not enough money to sustain a single leader save of the rich boy with the last name of Spencer who is spending family money, not raising money from "_white supremacy._"  They've been as quiet as a church mouse since Charlottesville.  And, as Trump said, regarding Charlottesville, there were some good people - just fed up with the status quo, but they were not white supremacists.  Nothing materialized.
> 
> Being opposed to the socialist takeover of America and watching the left try to tear down all vestiges of our culture doesn't make people white supremacists.  In the view of black supremacists, if you oppose their take-over, you are a white supremacist.  It's ridiculous.  But we can come here and observe while the heathen rage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer is spending family money? I did not know that. Even I assumed that the biggest name recognition white supremacist  in the country would be able to get some money from his mailing lists.
> 
> 
> From lib media outlets if nothing else.
> 
> 
> Are you sure of your information on that? If so they are even more pathetic than even I realized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He might be getting some donations from outside sources, but based on what?  Does he have books, videos, a podcast, a YouTube channel or viable organization?  I realize I'm not looking, but I do know in my own area that there is an active antifa group, the NAACP, black Democrats pushing their racial agenda, and we have Stacey Abrams.
> 
> WHO do these white groups have?  Is there a voice, other than National Socialists, advocating a return to our foundational principles?   I'm not talking about groups advocating more laws to oppose even more laws.  My default is that I oppose any legislation that increases the size, power and / or scope of government.  I guess I'd expect that from any _"white supremacy_" organization.  They might be out there, but I've never met any of them - which is unusual since the head honcho of black supremacy here assures me that I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites have almost every institution at every level of government. You've never met a white supremacist but you post shitloads of white supremacist ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absolute nonsense, not supported by a single fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is supported by all the facts. In fact it's undeniable. You you aren't going to get to play the white victim card here. Nor do you get to post white supremacist bullshit then claim it doesn't exist. There are no black supremacists here boy, and that's another false equivalence used by white supremacists.
Click to expand...




You are so full of crap. NO ONE is falling for the shit you post. NO ONE has any respect for you. 


NO ONE.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spencer is spending family money? I did not know that. Even I assumed that the biggest name recognition white supremacist  in the country would be able to get some money from his mailing lists.
> 
> 
> From lib media outlets if nothing else.
> 
> 
> Are you sure of your information on that? If so they are even more pathetic than even I realized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He might be getting some donations from outside sources, but based on what?  Does he have books, videos, a podcast, a YouTube channel or viable organization?  I realize I'm not looking, but I do know in my own area that there is an active antifa group, the NAACP, black Democrats pushing their racial agenda, and we have Stacey Abrams.
> 
> WHO do these white groups have?  Is there a voice, other than National Socialists, advocating a return to our foundational principles?   I'm not talking about groups advocating more laws to oppose even more laws.  My default is that I oppose any legislation that increases the size, power and / or scope of government.  I guess I'd expect that from any _"white supremacy_" organization.  They might be out there, but I've never met any of them - which is unusual since the head honcho of black supremacy here assures me that I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites have almost every institution at every level of government. You've never met a white supremacist but you post shitloads of white supremacist ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absolute nonsense, not supported by a single fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is supported by all the facts. In fact it's undeniable. You you aren't going to get to play the white victim card here. Nor do you get to post white supremacist bullshit then claim it doesn't exist. There are no black supremacists here boy, and that's another false equivalence used by white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of crap. NO ONE is falling for the shit you post. NO ONE has any respect for you.
> 
> 
> NO ONE.
Click to expand...


You know it's bad when people who think like you are afraid to even attempt to defend you.  IM2 should be embarrassed.

I know what the definition of white supremacy is, but I don't fit it.  If I did, it would be done with pride, but lording over other people just doesn't have much appeal.


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> He might be getting some donations from outside sources, but based on what?  Does he have books, videos, a podcast, a YouTube channel or viable organization?  I realize I'm not looking, but I do know in my own area that there is an active antifa group, the NAACP, black Democrats pushing their racial agenda, and we have Stacey Abrams.
> 
> WHO do these white groups have?  Is there a voice, other than National Socialists, advocating a return to our foundational principles?   I'm not talking about groups advocating more laws to oppose even more laws.  My default is that I oppose any legislation that increases the size, power and / or scope of government.  I guess I'd expect that from any _"white supremacy_" organization.  They might be out there, but I've never met any of them - which is unusual since the head honcho of black supremacy here assures me that I'm a white supremacist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites have almost every institution at every level of government. You've never met a white supremacist but you post shitloads of white supremacist ideology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is absolute nonsense, not supported by a single fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is supported by all the facts. In fact it's undeniable. You you aren't going to get to play the white victim card here. Nor do you get to post white supremacist bullshit then claim it doesn't exist. There are no black supremacists here boy, and that's another false equivalence used by white supremacists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so full of crap. NO ONE is falling for the shit you post. NO ONE has any respect for you.
> 
> 
> NO ONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know it's bad when people who think like you are afraid to even attempt to defend you.  IM2 should be embarrassed.
Click to expand...



Can you imagine how funny it would have been, if someone had come forward to claim to believe the shit that IM2 says?


I could cut and paste the STUPID  that he says, and just , "so you believe this shit"? 

What could they say then?


Hilarious.


----------



## cnm

Porter Rockwell said:


> Every time I walk out the door and find fewer and fewer people that speak the same language I do, came from a similar culture, and have the same values, I'm reminded that there IS a subtle form of genocide going on.


WASPs are not a race.


----------



## Correll

cnm said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I walk out the door and find fewer and fewer people that speak the same language I do, came from a similar culture, and have the same values, I'm reminded that there IS a subtle form of genocide going on.
> 
> 
> 
> WASPs are not a race.
Click to expand...



There was no mention of race or wasp in his post. That you have to be so inaccurate,...


No. That you *choose* to be so inaccurate, shows that you believe him to be right, and that you have to use false data and lies to fight him.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

cnm said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I walk out the door and find fewer and fewer people that speak the same language I do, came from a similar culture, and have the same values, I'm reminded that there IS a subtle form of genocide going on.
> 
> 
> 
> WASPs are not a race.
Click to expand...


You do realize that WASP means WHITE Anglo Saxon People, right

White = Race

"_Anglo - Saxon   someone who belonged to the race of people who lived in England from about 600 AD2 [uncountable] the language used by the Anglo-Saxons3 [countable] a white person, especially someone whose family originally came from England_"

Anglo-Saxon | Definition from the Nationality & race topic | Nationality & race

"_No example of an Anglo-Saxon language has even been found out of Britain itself.[1] It arose here, like the race itself, by the blending of tribal dialects, of which those of northern origin are important. From the traces we find of Danish or Scandian settlements in nearly all parts of England it appears that the Scandinavian influence in the origin of the Anglo-Saxon race has been underestimated.

In tracing the assimilation of the dialects, as far as it is possible to do so, we trace the formation of the race_..."

Origin of the Anglo-Saxon Race - Wikisource, the free online library

THE TWO SEEDS OF GENESIS 3:15 - PDF Free Download


Both sources are pretty in depth and will clear up any misunderstandings for you.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Every time I walk out the door and find fewer and fewer people that speak the same language I do, came from a similar culture, and have the same values, I'm reminded that there IS a subtle form of genocide going on.
> 
> 
> 
> WASPs are not a race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was no mention of race or wasp in his post. That you have to be so inaccurate,...
> 
> 
> No. That you *choose* to be so inaccurate, shows that you believe him to be right, and that you have to use false data and lies to fight him.
Click to expand...


That's right, but when have you EVER witnessed the left discuss what any topic was actually about and / or responded to the actual points being made?  I left this thread to discuss another topic that came up and we talked about everything except the OP.  Why should it be any different here?  IMO, some of these people know when they are on the losing end of a discussion, so they create straw men.  It's okay.  The sources I gave go back into both secular history and then biblical history to show who those people are - even with the left's inevitable phony counter-argument that race is a "_social construct_" until they have to defend the existence of the NAACP or all that swill that black guys are more abundantly endowed (claiming a superiority without admitting to what they believe.)


----------



## cnm

Porter Rockwell said:


> ou do realize that WASP means WHITE Anglo Saxon People, right


White Anglo Saxon Protestant, oh irredeemably obtuse one. WASPness is not inheritable.


----------



## cnm

Correll said:


> There was no mention of race or wasp in his post. That you have to be so inaccurate,...


I'll bet a cyber beer he's a WASP. Genocide applies to race or nationality. Irredeemable obtuseness applies to Crackers.


----------



## Correll

cnm said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was no mention of race or wasp in his post. That you have to be so inaccurate,...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet a cyber beer he's a WASP. Genocide applies to race or nationality. Irredeemable obtuseness applies to Crackers.
Click to expand...



Genocide is generally thought of in that manner, but it is not limited only to such groups.

Religious groups can certainly be targeted for genocide, for one example.


You know, like say, maybe THE FUCKING  JEWS?


*Do you need a link?* 


YOu know, to prove to you that Jews were targeted for genocide?


Or is this going to be the first time fucking ever, that a lib will admit that the shit they were saying, was just fucking wrong?



I really look forward to finding out, if there are any fucking limits, to whatever is wrong with you people.


----------



## cnm

Correll said:


> Religious groups can certainly be targeted for genocide, for one example.
> 
> 
> You know, like say, maybe THE FUCKING JEWS?


Or Protestants?


----------



## cnm

_genocide  the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​
So to which nation or people does the whiner who claims he's being deliberately killed belong?


----------



## Correll

cnm said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Religious groups can certainly be targeted for genocide, for one example.
> 
> 
> You know, like say, maybe THE FUCKING JEWS?
> 
> 
> 
> Or Protestants?
Click to expand...



Is that you admitting you were wrong about the meaning of the world genocide? 


Admit it, or ask for the links. One or the other, your freak.


----------



## Correll

cnm said:


> _genocide  the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​
> So to which nation or people does the whiner who claims he's being deliberately killed belong?





1. That you felt a need to marginalize him, in your question, before he had a chance to answer, was your brain, telling you that it knows you are full of shit, and thus you need to take steps to get people to not pay attention to the answer. 


2. Genocide can be against any large group of people. Try to be less crazy.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

cnm said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> ou do realize that WASP means WHITE Anglo Saxon People, right
> 
> 
> 
> White Anglo Saxon Protestant, oh irredeemably obtuse one. WASPness is not inheritable.
Click to expand...


Biological traits *are always* inheritable.  Somebody fed you bad info.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> _genocide  the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​
> So to which nation or people does the whiner who claims he's being deliberately killed belong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That you felt a need to marginalize him, in your question, before he had a chance to answer, was your brain, telling you that it knows you are full of shit, and thus you need to take steps to get people to not pay attention to the answer.
> 
> 
> 2. Genocide can be against any large group of people. Try to be less crazy.
Click to expand...


You can explain their position better than I can.  How can there be white supremacy without a white race?  Is somebody moving the goalposts so that there never has been an issue about race?  

If white isn't a race, how come the government keeps giving me forms that ask if I'm White, Black, or Hispanic?

I found this on Wikipedia:

"_As Whites, especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or *WASPs, are the dominant racial *and cultural group, according to sociologist Steven Seidman, writing from a critical theory perspective, "White culture constitutes the general cultural mainstream_..."

White Americans - Wikipedia


----------



## cnm

_genocide the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​


----------



## cnm

Porter Rockwell said:


> Biological traits *are always* inheritable.


TIL Protestantism is considered a biological trait by deplorables.


----------



## cnm

Correll said:


> Admit it, or ask for the links.


Unlike Crackers, I provide links to cites to back up my assertions.


----------



## cnm

Porter Rockwell said:


> If white isn't a race, how come the government keeps giving me forms that ask if I'm White, Black, or Hispanic?


Because racism is America's birth defect. You perfectly display it.


----------



## IM2

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> _genocide  the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​
> So to which nation or people does the whiner who claims he's being deliberately killed belong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That you felt a need to marginalize him, in your question, before he had a chance to answer, was your brain, telling you that it knows you are full of shit, and thus you need to take steps to get people to not pay attention to the answer.
> 
> 
> 2. Genocide can be against any large group of people. Try to be less crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can explain their position better than I can.  How can there be white supremacy without a white race?  Is somebody moving the goalposts so that there never has been an issue about race?
> 
> If white isn't a race, how come the government keeps giving me forms that ask if I'm White, Black, or Hispanic?
> 
> I found this on Wikipedia:
> 
> "_As Whites, especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or *WASPs, are the dominant racial *and cultural group, according to sociologist Steven Seidman, writing from a critical theory perspective, "White culture constitutes the general cultural mainstream_..."
> 
> White Americans - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


And you found wrong. Worldwide, whites are about 10 percent. You don't dominate shit without use of violence.


----------



## IM2

*Incidents of white supremacist propaganda distribution doubled in the last year, ADL finds*
By Mallory Simon, CNN
Updated 8:05 AM ET, Wed February 12, 2020

White supremacists increased their propaganda efforts across the United States last year, with the highest number of incidents of propaganda distribution reported since the Anti-Defamation League began tracking such incidents, the group reported Wednesday.

The number of incidents of hate groups leaving flyers, stickers, banners and posters in public places more than doubled from 1,214 in 2018 to 2,713 in 2019, according to the ADL, which tracks and fights to combat hate. That averages more than seven a day.






_Stickers with white supremacist slogans were plastered at Orange Coast College in Costa Mesa, California, in the fall semester, the ADL says._

"Distribution of propaganda has been a tried-and-true tactic of white supremacists and other extremists for decades, but what is apparent in our research is that these individuals are more emboldened by the current environment -- and fliering and stickering provides an easy and anonymous way to spread their hateful message to a large audience," said Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of ADL.

"For some, seeing such propaganda may be the first step in the process of an individual engaging with white supremacy. Another could be marching with one of these groups," he added. "We feel it's important to shed light on this as a way to bring increased awareness and potentially intervene in someone's pathway into white supremacy and extremism."

White supremacist groups often promote ideas of a prosperous white America at the expense of any other minority and often with derogatory and hateful language.

College campuses were targeted with white supremacist propaganda in 630 incidents, nearly double the 320 cases in 2018, the ADL tally found. Propaganda was found and reported on 433 campuses across 43 states and the District of Columbia in 2019, the report said.

The upward trend continues from the 2019 spring semester, which itself set a record for the most extremist propaganda found on campus since 2016, when the ADL began tracking this kind of activity.

Incidents of white supremacist propaganda distribution doubled in the last year, ADL finds - CNN


----------



## Correll

Porter Rockwell said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> _genocide  the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​
> So to which nation or people does the whiner who claims he's being deliberately killed belong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That you felt a need to marginalize him, in your question, before he had a chance to answer, was your brain, telling you that it knows you are full of shit, and thus you need to take steps to get people to not pay attention to the answer.
> 
> 
> 2. Genocide can be against any large group of people. Try to be less crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can explain their position better than I can.  How can there be white supremacy without a white race?  Is somebody moving the goalposts so that there never has been an issue about race?
> 
> If white isn't a race, how come the government keeps giving me forms that ask if I'm White, Black, or Hispanic?
> 
> I found this on Wikipedia:
> 
> "_As Whites, especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or *WASPs, are the dominant racial *and cultural group, according to sociologist Steven Seidman, writing from a critical theory perspective, "White culture constitutes the general cultural mainstream_..."
> 
> White Americans - Wikipedia
Click to expand...



Libs just say shit. They don't mean it. THey know it is shit when they say it.

You can tell, all the time. 


Look how he responded when I pointed out that he had in effect, denied that Jews could be genocided.



IF he had any investment in his own words,  he would have been embarrassed as hell that he talked himself into a corner.

He MIGHT have tried to talk his way out of it, but it would have been quite tortured, and fail.


INstead, he just moved on, without missing a beat, to the next rhetorical ploy.


----------



## Correll

cnm said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admit it, or ask for the links.
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike Crackers, I provide links to cites to back up my assertions.
Click to expand...



Said the man who's current position is, that religious groups can't be targeted for genocide. YOu know, like the jews. The Jews were never targeted for genocide, according to cnm.


Also, your use of racist slurs, is noted. Not surprisingly, the lib is racist. 


And he doesn't care. Because all that talk, about being anti-racist, like everything libs say, is shit.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

cnm said:


> _genocide the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​




Your point?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

cnm said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> Biological traits *are always* inheritable.
> 
> 
> 
> TIL Protestantism is considered a biological trait by deplorables.
Click to expand...


Since I'm not in political camps that call each other names, that has no meaning to me.  Sorry.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

cnm said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If white isn't a race, how come the government keeps giving me forms that ask if I'm White, Black, or Hispanic?
> 
> 
> 
> Because racism is America's birth defect. You perfectly display it.
Click to expand...


The Right to life; to have a homeland - that is a birth defect?  That is how you justify genocide?


----------



## Porter Rockwell

IM2 said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> _genocide  the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​
> So to which nation or people does the whiner who claims he's being deliberately killed belong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That you felt a need to marginalize him, in your question, before he had a chance to answer, was your brain, telling you that it knows you are full of shit, and thus you need to take steps to get people to not pay attention to the answer.
> 
> 
> 2. Genocide can be against any large group of people. Try to be less crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can explain their position better than I can.  How can there be white supremacy without a white race?  Is somebody moving the goalposts so that there never has been an issue about race?
> 
> If white isn't a race, how come the government keeps giving me forms that ask if I'm White, Black, or Hispanic?
> 
> I found this on Wikipedia:
> 
> "_As Whites, especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or *WASPs, are the dominant racial *and cultural group, according to sociologist Steven Seidman, writing from a critical theory perspective, "White culture constitutes the general cultural mainstream_..."
> 
> White Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you found wrong. Worldwide, whites are about 10 percent. You don't dominate shit without use of violence.
Click to expand...


Reading isn't your strong suit.  When you see something in quotation marks AND in italics, it is not my words.  It is a direct quote from whatever link that follows.  No wonder you have such a hard time here!  The quotation deals with the white race, not all the races of mankind.  You need to learn how to read the thread and access the links.  Then, again, ignore what I just said.  It will give real white supremacists a good chuckle as you stumble your way through this.


----------



## Porter Rockwell

Correll said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> _genocide  the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​
> So to which nation or people does the whiner who claims he's being deliberately killed belong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. That you felt a need to marginalize him, in your question, before he had a chance to answer, was your brain, telling you that it knows you are full of shit, and thus you need to take steps to get people to not pay attention to the answer.
> 
> 
> 2. Genocide can be against any large group of people. Try to be less crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can explain their position better than I can.  How can there be white supremacy without a white race?  Is somebody moving the goalposts so that there never has been an issue about race?
> 
> If white isn't a race, how come the government keeps giving me forms that ask if I'm White, Black, or Hispanic?
> 
> I found this on Wikipedia:
> 
> "_As Whites, especially White Anglo-Saxon Protestants, or *WASPs, are the dominant racial *and cultural group, according to sociologist Steven Seidman, writing from a critical theory perspective, "White culture constitutes the general cultural mainstream_..."
> 
> White Americans - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Libs just say shit. They don't mean it. THey know it is shit when they say it.
> 
> You can tell, all the time.
> 
> 
> Look how he responded when I pointed out that he had in effect, denied that Jews could be genocided.
> 
> 
> 
> IF he had any investment in his own words,  he would have been embarrassed as hell that he talked himself into a corner.
> 
> He MIGHT have tried to talk his way out of it, but it would have been quite tortured, and fail.
> 
> 
> INstead, he just moved on, without missing a beat, to the next rhetorical ploy.
Click to expand...


Imagine if they tried this in a live recorded debate.


----------



## Uncensored2008

cnm said:


> _genocide  the deliberate killing of a whole nation or people._​
> So to which nation or people does the whiner who claims he's being deliberately killed belong?



democrats have a final solution to the white problem in mind, that's for damned sure.


----------



## Uncensored2008

cnm said:


> Porter Rockwell said:
> 
> 
> 
> If white isn't a race, how come the government keeps giving me forms that ask if I'm White, Black, or Hispanic?
> 
> 
> 
> Because racism is America's birth defect. You perfectly display it.
Click to expand...


Yep, racism never existed before America. There was never a Genghis Khan, Attila the Hun, or Shaka Zulu....

And you have an IQ over 20...


----------



## protectionist

IM2 said:


> You're a white supremacist son. THE prime example of the problem. We all have a history and destiny. No one races destiny is any greater than any other race. There is no genocide being waged against white people. Stop listening to satan, boy.


Maybe not genocide, but certainly there is racism, and not just by Affirmative Action,  Racism against whites is manifested in a long list of ways of Black Privilege, that still persists even now, well into the Trump era.

Black Privilege: Alive & Well In the Trump Era


----------



## overkill

Mortimer said:


> What is White Supremacy?
> 
> I realised White Supremacy is not evil. White Supremacy only means that whites are more intelligent and more capable. And through this they are guardians of the creature. Of all creature and of all other humans. Just like the Bible says it is the humans who guard the creature and who are the overlords. That doesnt mean they abuse or mistreat the creature, they are just not like the others though. Just like humans are kind to animals and animals are your pets and love you and are faithful but humans are not animals themselfes. You should be kind to animals and treat them well and guard them. You are their master, you should protect them, feed them, guard them, love them. The dog also loves you and he is faithful. I disagree though with some animal rights activists who depict humans as animals or below animals, humans are not animals. Humans are the guardians of animals but they are not animals themselfes. I heard people saying "humans are also just animals".
> 
> That means White Supremacy. Whether you agree or disagree and science will reveal if Whites are really more intelligent. If they are and it is science, we shouldnt denie it.



  You are wrong when you say humans aren't animals.  Of course we are.  Also, there is no such thing as supremacy.  Unless they are parasitic or in a symbiotic relationship, all creatures tend to stick to their own kind.  They don't do it out of any sense of supremacy.  They do it just because that is what evolution has shown over and over again is the right way to be.


----------

