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



## Biff_Poindexter

Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'


  With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??

Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...

*"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*

They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:

*KingFace (Conservative Thug)*



 
*Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*


*Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
 

Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....


----------



## basquebromance

not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!

with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??.........




It is weird the way you say that, like it is something the Party does to the Candidate.


It is up to the Candidate to win the Primary. The Party falls in line, after the voters choose the winner. 


That is the way it is supposed to go.


----------



## IM2

Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.





I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.  

You know we can't just conscript people, right?


----------



## Admiral Rockwell Tory

basquebromance said:


> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns



WTF is Darrell Scott?


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
Click to expand...

You've had black republicans announce before.


----------



## L.K.Eder

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is weird the way you say that, like it is something the Party does to the Candidate.
> 
> 
> It is up to the Candidate to win the Primary. The Party falls in line, after the voters choose the winner.
> 
> 
> That is the way it is supposed to go.
Click to expand...

unless it is the democratic primary. then it is absolutely evil when the voters choose front runners for the losers to fall in line.


----------



## IM2

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is Darrell Scott?
Click to expand...

Darrell Scott is a black pastor that supports trump. He's been trying to get blacks to support trump by giving them envelopes of cash at events his organization holds.


----------



## basquebromance

Admiral Rockwell Tory said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is Darrell Scott?
Click to expand...


----------



## IM2

basquebromance said:


> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns



Candace Owens is not old enough and she knows nothing about forming policy. Plus she's dumb. Ben Carson has shown he can run the country by the way he has mismanaged HUD. And those 2 pastors are jokes.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens is not old enough and she knows nothing about forming policy. Plus she's dumb. Ben Carson has shown he can run the country by the way he has mismanaged HUD. And those 2 pastors are jokes.
Click to expand...




Is the question when we republicans will nominate a black candidate, or when we will nominate one you like?


I LIKED Herman Cain. I think the voters that cared when the vile lib media started talking shit on him, were fools. 


It is interesting to revisit Cain's campaign, in light of Trump's successful rise to power. 


It seems the real trick for republicans, is not having the right skin color, but being able to survive the attacks from the vile media.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
Click to expand...

True.  The first, Frederick Douglass, ran in 1888, predating the first Democratic Party candidate by 80 years.


----------



## Alan Stallion

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

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


----------



## Crepitus

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....


What about that guy who he bussed to all the rallies?  You know, the one who he referred to as "my African American".


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....



I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"


----------



## katsteve2012

Crepitus said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> What about that guy who he bussed to all the rallies?  You know, the one who he referred to as "my African American".
Click to expand...


He left the GOP, according to the media.
Gregory Cheadle, the man Trump called 'my African American', is leaving the GOP  - CNNPolitics


----------



## Denizen

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....



It will be unrepentant OJ Simpson.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True.  The first, Frederick Douglass, ran in 1888, predating the first Democratic Party candidate by 80 years.
Click to expand...

LOL! You republicans make me laugh with this disingenuous bullshit.


----------



## katsteve2012

Denizen said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It will be unrepentant OJ Simpson.
Click to expand...


Not a chance. He recently publically criticized the execution of a black man in Alabama.

O.J. Simpson on Alabama execution: 'It's just wrong'


----------



## IM2

Alan Stallion said:


> Lt. Col. Allen West would have a good run if he chose to run this decade.
> 
> Republicans could have had Dr. Alan Keyes in 2000, but unfortunately went with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bush's 2000 rival John McCain in 2008.


Republicans handcuffed and put Keyes in jail for trying to get in a debate. Alan West has family members who won't vote for him. I know several of  them.


----------



## IM2

CrusaderFrank said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
Click to expand...


The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.


----------



## IM2

Crepitus said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> What about that guy who he bussed to all the rallies?  You know, the one who he referred to as "my African American".
Click to expand...


I Guess He's a Slave On the Plantation too


----------



## Butch_Coolidge

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.



Snoop running?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## CrusaderFrank

IM2 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
Click to expand...


He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?


----------



## Correll

CrusaderFrank said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
Click to expand...



He wanted it to be true. Because, in his mind, Kenya is a better place to be from, then America.


It is such a terrible reflection on our society, that we elected someone to lead our nation, that does not like our nation.


----------



## IM2

CrusaderFrank said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
Click to expand...


All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
Click to expand...



debunked does not mean that some lib disagreed. It takes more than that. This is not your PHD thesis review. We will hold your statements to actual standards and not just give you a pass.


We have more respect for you than they did.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

Of course you can.


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can.
Click to expand...



It's easy. The answer is obvious.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens is not old enough and she knows nothing about forming policy. Plus she's dumb. Ben Carson has shown he can run the country by the way he has mismanaged HUD. And those 2 pastors are jokes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question when we republicans will nominate a black candidate, or when we will nominate one you like?
> 
> 
> I LIKED Herman Cain. I think the voters that cared when the vile lib media started talking shit on him, were fools.
> 
> 
> It is interesting to revisit Cain's campaign, in light of Trump's successful rise to power.
> 
> 
> It seems the real trick for republicans, is not having the right skin color, but being able to survive the attacks from the vile media.
Click to expand...

Always the victims, eh?


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

The 14th of never...LOL!


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens is not old enough and she knows nothing about forming policy. Plus she's dumb. Ben Carson has shown he can run the country by the way he has mismanaged HUD. And those 2 pastors are jokes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question when we republicans will nominate a black candidate, or when we will nominate one you like?
> 
> 
> I LIKED Herman Cain. I think the voters that cared when the vile lib media started talking shit on him, were fools.
> 
> 
> It is interesting to revisit Cain's campaign, in light of Trump's successful rise to power.
> 
> 
> It seems the real trick for republicans, is not having the right skin color, but being able to survive the attacks from the vile media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Always the victims, eh?
Click to expand...




Often enough that it is a problem. Any republicans should dismiss any negative news from the media on any republican candidate.


It was sad the way that a decent candidate was sunk by media attacks.


----------



## Correll

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
Click to expand...




That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is Darrell Scott?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darrell Scott is a black pastor that supports trump. He's been trying to get blacks to support trump by giving them envelopes of cash at events his organization holds.
Click to expand...

Bwhahaaaaaaaa!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
Click to expand...


Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...

*“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*

*Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
Click to expand...



1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up. 

2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.

3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy. The answer is obvious.
Click to expand...

Of course....so easy, so obvious you will now tell us when that exact time is.....right?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
Click to expand...

Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....

But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares" 

 

-- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy. The answer is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course....so easy, so obvious you will now tell us when that exact time is.....right?
Click to expand...



Sure. Glad to.


When a Black Presidential Candidate wins the primary election.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
Click to expand...



Wait, so, because you perceive some racial aspect to conservative fans' support of Diamond and Silk,  you think that somehow obligates me to give what Hurd says, some sort of extra credibility?



That is an interesting chain of logic. Which I do not agree with. 


Hurd is welcome to his opinion. If he has something of substance to say, I will be happy to discuss it. But what you posted just sounded like more of the same old shit. So, consider it dismissed.


----------



## Jitss617

We have so many options of great leaders. Most of the young Conservative running for the house are black republicans.  But I think Candace Owens will have to get on stage... she will destroy all comers. There are so many young black conservatives on Facebook who are popular! It’s incredible


----------



## bodecea

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy. The answer is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course....so easy, so obvious you will now tell us when that exact time is.....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Glad to.
> 
> 
> When a Black Presidential Candidate wins the primary election.
Click to expand...

Now why am I not surprised that you dodge answering........I mean, it's not as if you alway lie about stuff like providing facts, links or evidence to back up your claims.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Correll said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy. The answer is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course....so easy, so obvious you will now tell us when that exact time is.....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Glad to.
> 
> 
> When a Black Presidential Candidate wins the primary election.
Click to expand...

Maybe one of these folks? I should live so long!


Meet the 6 Black Republican Women Running for Congress


----------



## CrusaderFrank

IM2 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
Click to expand...


Debunked?

Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second


----------



## Correll

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy. The answer is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course....so easy, so obvious you will now tell us when that exact time is.....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Glad to.
> 
> 
> When a Black Presidential Candidate wins the primary election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now why am I not surprised that you dodge answering........I mean, it's not as if you alway lie about stuff like providing facts, links or evidence to back up your claims.
Click to expand...


It's not a dodge. It's how it works. At least in the GOP. The voters choose. The candidates have to win their support.


I know this is strange for you. You dems have your candidates picked in smoking back rooms by big wigs, and you bow down to them like the serfs you are.


I, for one example, liked Herman Cain. But I am just one voter. His base abandoned him, for what I consider stupid reasons. It was over by the time the primary got to my state.


It was not fair. But the process is not always fair. But sooner or later, some black guy, will manage to get through the process and the rest of the party will fall in line, like we cons did when McCain won, and the mods should have, when Trump won.


Simple enough. Do you understand?


----------



## Correll

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course you can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy. The answer is obvious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course....so easy, so obvious you will now tell us when that exact time is.....right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Glad to.
> 
> 
> When a Black Presidential Candidate wins the primary election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe one of these folks? I should live so long!
> 
> 
> Meet the 6 Black Republican Women Running for Congress
Click to expand...




Why? Or why not? What difference will it make to you, either way?


----------



## IM2

bodecea said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens is not old enough and she knows nothing about forming policy. Plus she's dumb. Ben Carson has shown he can run the country by the way he has mismanaged HUD. And those 2 pastors are jokes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question when we republicans will nominate a black candidate, or when we will nominate one you like?
> 
> 
> I LIKED Herman Cain. I think the voters that cared when the vile lib media started talking shit on him, were fools.
> 
> 
> It is interesting to revisit Cain's campaign, in light of Trump's successful rise to power.
> 
> 
> It seems the real trick for republicans, is not having the right skin color, but being able to survive the attacks from the vile media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Always the victims, eh?
Click to expand...


The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.


----------



## IM2

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is Darrell Scott?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darrell Scott is a black pastor that supports trump. He's been trying to get blacks to support trump by giving them envelopes of cash at events his organization holds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bwhahaaaaaaaa!
Click to expand...

I don't know what you're laughing at son.






Urban Revitalization Coalition’s CEO Darrell Scott at the White House in 2018.

Allies of Donald Trump have begun holding events in black communities where organizers lavish praise on the president as they hand out tens of thousands of dollars to lucky attendees.

The first giveaway took place last month in Cleveland, where recipients whose winning tickets were drawn from a bin landed cash gifts in increments of several hundred dollars, stuffed into envelopes. A second giveaway scheduled for this month in Virginia has been postponed, and more are said to be in the works.

Asked about the legality of the giveaways in a brief phone interview, the Urban Revitalization Coalition’s CEO, Darrell Scott, said that most gifts were between $300 and $500, and that the group mandates that anyone who receives over $600 fills out a W-9 form in order to ensure compliance with tax law. He did not respond to follow-up questions about how the giveaways were structured and whether they met the legal standard for a charitable act.

Scott, a Cleveland-based pastor, has been one of Trump’s closest and most prominent black supporters. He struck up a relationship with the real estate mogul in the years before Trump’s presidential run, and — along with Trump’s former lieutenant Michael Cohen — co-founded the National Diversity Coalition for Trump to promote that run.

Trump allies are handing out cash to black voters


----------



## AzogtheDefiler




----------



## IM2

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
Click to expand...


You know as well as I do the only reason why chumps like Correll pump up black retards like those 3 is because they want to say they have blacks in the party so they can't be called racists. They aren't serious about black peoples concerns. The only reason they are lying about the republican party's entire history is to get enough blacks to vote  for trump so he gets a second term. Not because trump has any policies that actually address the issues blacks face.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do the only reason why chumps like Correll pump up black retards like those 3 is because they want to say they have blacks in the party so they can't be called racists. They aren't serious about black peoples concerns. The only reason they are lying about the republican party's entire history is to get enough blacks to vote  for trump so he gets a second term. Not because trump has any policies that actually address the issues blacks face.
Click to expand...

There should be many more African Americans in the Repub Party. It is a shame there are not.


----------



## IM2

CrusaderFrank said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
Click to expand...


More debunked bullshit.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

IM2 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
Click to expand...


LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it


----------



## CrusaderFrank

IM2 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> I give the democrats credit for nominating, then electing a guy who told everyone that he was "born in Kenya"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
Click to expand...


----------



## IM2

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do the only reason why chumps like Correll pump up black retards like those 3 is because they want to say they have blacks in the party so they can't be called racists. They aren't serious about black peoples concerns. The only reason they are lying about the republican party's entire history is to get enough blacks to vote  for trump so he gets a second term. Not because trump has any policies that actually address the issues blacks face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There should be many more African Americans in the Repub Party. It is a shame there are not.
Click to expand...


No, there should be fewer. Because the party doesn't represent the values that was part of freeing the slaves. Your parties policies are a problem for blacks and you guys don't care. So in my view, if blacks are not going to be democrats, then be a member of the green party. Because that is a truly inclusive party with an agenda that does provide policies that address issues blacks live with.  Once the green party can get more national respect, that's where I'm going. But right now I stick with democrats because more and more blacks are actually inside the decision making process of the party and as leadership in congress. None are even close in the republican party.


----------



## IM2

CrusaderFrank said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
Click to expand...


It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens is not old enough and she knows nothing about forming policy. Plus she's dumb. Ben Carson has shown he can run the country by the way he has mismanaged HUD. And those 2 pastors are jokes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the question when we republicans will nominate a black candidate, or when we will nominate one you like?
> 
> 
> I LIKED Herman Cain. I think the voters that cared when the vile lib media started talking shit on him, were fools.
> 
> 
> It is interesting to revisit Cain's campaign, in light of Trump's successful rise to power.
> 
> 
> It seems the real trick for republicans, is not having the right skin color, but being able to survive the attacks from the vile media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Always the victims, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
Click to expand...




1. It is not our policies. If it were our policies, you would not spend so much time lying.


2. No one cares about nominating a black or a woman or a brown candidate. I won't care when the time comes and neither will you. When it happens, you will downplay it, and dismiss it, and invent some new reason to call us "racist". And I'll be judging the candidate on his or her policies and resume. Like I always do.


----------



## Gracie

Candace Owens.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do the only reason why chumps like Correll pump up black retards like those 3 is because they want to say they have blacks in the party so they can't be called racists. They aren't serious about black peoples concerns. The only reason they are lying about the republican party's entire history is to get enough blacks to vote  for trump so he gets a second term. Not because trump has any policies that actually address the issues blacks face.
Click to expand...



1. I never base my actions on trying to get people like you, to not call me "racist".  And I never will.

2. Our policies serve the interests of many black people. IN a  sane world, those blacks would notice and respond accordingly. Maybe Trump is loud enough that some of them will.

3. I never lie. YOu do. And you know it. Where does your best white friend send his kids to school?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
Click to expand...



Speak clearly. So why did all those people claim that he said it then?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so, because you perceive some racial aspect to conservative fans' support of Diamond and Silk,  you think that somehow obligates me to give what Hurd says, some sort of extra credibility?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an interesting chain of logic. Which I do not agree with.
> 
> 
> Hurd is welcome to his opinion. If he has something of substance to say, I will be happy to discuss it. But what you posted just sounded like more of the same old shit. So, consider it dismissed.
Click to expand...


What was Diamond & Silk doing before they started grifting Trump voters?? Do you care? Nope...

They were Democrats before -- but they knew that buckdancing routine wouldn't play well there -- so they hitched onto Trump -- and what do you know, they get paid 2 million in "consulting fees"  For what? Entertainment... ..Do you even know their real names?? Nope...just as long they shuck and jive for you, that is all you care about...

but a man who worked 10 years in intelligence, who speaks other languages fluently, worked undercover in Pakistan -- who cares about that guy -- he doesn't shuck and jive for massa the way you think he should....its all about celebrating intellectual rot for you Trumpers...


----------



## IM2

CrusaderFrank said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That's fake news.

 A popular item of “birther” chatter in October 2009 concerned the discovery of an archived copy of a 27 June 2004 article from the web version of the Kenyan-based _Sunday Standard_ newspaper. The article was a

reproduction of an Associated Press (AP) wire story which dealt with the withdrawal of Republican candidate Jack Ryan from the race for a seat representing Illinois in the U.S. Senate, paving the way for the Democratic contender, Barack Obama, to win the election. Why this article was of particular interest to birthers was its lead-in sentence, which referred to Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born.” Surely, claimed birthers, such an august news agency as the Associated Press would not have identified Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born” if they did not have ample evidence to support its use of that term.

*However, the Associated Press made no such reference; the identification of Barack Obama as “Kenyan-born” was added to the Sunday Standard‘s version of the AP story by someone else (who misspelled the politician’s given name as “Barrack” in the process)* and is apparently unique to that publication. The full text of the “Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid” article as originally issued by the Associated Press is retrievable from the
LexisNexis archive of global news sources, and it contains no reference (in the lead-in or elsewhere) to Barack Obama’s being “Kenyan-born”:

AP Reports Obama as 'Kenyan-Born'

*The idiots even spelled his name wrong and you're here posting up a copy of this in order to defend your claim. You have proven to every one who didn't know it already that you're a dumb ass. Now move on.*

Associated Press Online

June 25, 2004 Friday

Illinois’ Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid

BYLINE: MAURA KELLY LANNAN; Associated Press Writer
SECTION: NATIONAL POLITICAL NEWS
DATELINE: CHICAGO

Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the race Friday amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days.

“It’s clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race,” Ryan, 44, said in a statement. “What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign – the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play.”

The campaign began to come apart Monday following the release of embarrassing records from Ryan’s divorce. In those records, his ex-wife, “Boston Public” actress Jeri Ryan, said Ryan took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans and tried to get her to perform sex acts with him while others watched.

Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one “avant-garde” club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable.

In quitting the race, Ryan lashed out at the media and said it was “truly outrageous” that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records.

“The media has gotten out of control,” he said.

Top Illinois Republicans immediately began the work of selecting a new candidate. Their choice will become an instant underdog against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama in the campaign for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke.

“I feel for him actually,” Obama said on WLS-AM. “What he’s gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn’t wish on anybody. Unfortunately, I think our politics has gotten so personalized and cutthroat that it’s very difficult for people to want to get in the business.”

Ryan had faced mounting pressure to quit from party leaders, who met several times in Washington this week to discuss whether the campaign could survive.

“He really was a dead man walking,” Gary MacDougal, former Illinois Republican Party chairman.

Ryan conducted an overnight poll to gauge his support. After reviewing the results, Ryan’s advisers told the candidate that the only way to survive would be wage an extremely negative and expensive response.

“Jack Ryan made the right decision. I know it must have been a difficult one,” said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who made his feelings known by canceling a fund-raising event scheduled for Thursday with Ryan.

Ryan was a political neophyte when he got into the race – a millionaire investment banker who had left business four years ago to teach at an all-boys parochial school in Chicago. He spent $3 million of his own fortune to win the primary.

With his good looks and Harvard background, Ryan was seen by many as the party’s best hope for revitalizing the Illinois GOP. The party lost control of the governor’s office and nearly every statewide office two years ago in the wake of a corruption scandal involving then-Gov. George Ryan, who has since been indicted. He is not related to Jack Ryan.

During the primary, Ryan waved off rumors of damaging sex allegations in his sealed divorce records, assuring state officials there was nothing in the file to worry about.

But the Tribune and Chicago TV station WLS sued for the records’ release, and a California judge ordered them unsealed. The couple fought to keep the records sealed, saying the release could harm their 9-year-old son.

“The fact that the Chicago Tribune sues for access to sealed custody documents and then takes unto itself the right to publish details of a custody dispute – over the objections of two parents who agree that the re-airing of their arguments will hurt their ability to co-parent their child and hurt their child – is truly outrageous,” he said.

Although most party leaders abandoned Ryan, Fitzgerald said Friday that he had encouraged him to stay in the race. “I think the public stoning of Jack Ryan is one of the most grotesque things I’ve seen in politics,” the senator said.

He said the party’s bigwigs pushed Ryan out: “It was like piranhas. They smelled blood in the water and they just devoured him.”

Ryan won the GOP primary by more than 10 percentage points over his two closest rivals, dairy owner James Oberweis and state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger.

Both Oberweis and Rauschenberger said this week that they would step in as Ryan’s replacement if party leaders asked. Other possible candidates mentioned include U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, former Gov. Jim Edgar and Sen. Fitzgerald, though all three have said they are not interested.

AP Reports Obama as 'Kenyan-Born'

On 2 August 2009, realtor/dentist/lawyer Dr. Orly Taitz Esq. unveiled her latest piece of dubious evidence in her long-running quest to demonstrate that President Barack Obama was not born in the United States of America: A photograph of a document purporting to be a Certified Copy of Registration of Birth issued by the Republic of Kenya in February 1964 which recorded a “Barack Hussein II” as having been born to Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann (Dunham) Obama in Mombasa, Kenya, in August 1961. Said document was reportedly obtained by Dr. Taitz from “an anonymous source” who didn’t want his name disclosed because he was “afraid for his life”:








&lt;img src="https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/images/politics/graphics/kenyacert.jpg" data-recalc-dims="1"&gt;


Skeptics quickly identified a variety of reasons for questioning the legitimacy of the supposed Kenyan document, such as:



The document is dated 17 February 1964 and a bears a legend identifying it as having been issued by the “Republic of Kenya,” but Kenya (a former British colony) didn’t officially adopt that name until 12 December 1964. In February 1964, it was known as the Dominion of Kenya.

The listed age of Barack Obama’s father is incorrect. (Barack Obama Sr. was born in 1936 and therefore would have been 24 or 25 years old at the time of Barack Jr.’s birth, not 26 as shown on the document.)

Mombasa is very far (several hundred miles) away from the part of Kenya in which Barack Obama Sr.’s family lived. Even if Barack Obama’s parents and family had wanted to travel away from their home so his birth could take place at hospital facilities within a large city, they would likely have set out for the much closer city of Nairobi.

Within a few days the certificate was clearly revealed to be a fake — it was actually a forgery based on a copy of an Australian Registration of Birth issued to one David Jeffrey Bomford (who was born in South Australia in 1959) which was grabbed off the Internet and used as a template for creating the fake Kenyan certificate:








&lt;img src="https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/images/politics/graphics/austcert.jpg" data-recalc-dims="1"&gt;


(Note the many features shared by these documents: Same certificate number, same book number, same page number, and the remarkable similarities in names — the Registrar listed on the Australian document is G.F. Lavender, while on the Kenyan document, it’s E.F. Lavender; the District Registrar listed on the Australian document is J.H. Miller, while on the Kenyan document it’s M.H. Miller.)
When reporters tracked down David Bomford, who currently lives in Adelaide, South Australia, for comment, he was somewhat bemused at having become the focus of an international news story:

Another Barack Obama “Kenyan birth certificate” of dubious origin was offered for sale by one Lucas Smith via eBay in August 2009:








&lt;img src="https://www.snopes.com/tachyon/images/politics/graphics/kenyacert2.jpg" data-recalc-dims="1"&gt;

This document exhibited many of the same red flags as the previous forgery, including its identification of the location of Barack Obama Jr.’s birth as Mombasa, even though that city was very far away from the part of Kenya in which Barack Obama Sr.’s family lived:
The image is part of the extremely ill-informed conspiracy theory that Obama was born in Mombasa — conveniently, one of the more Muslim parts of the country.

This has always been a red flag for conspiracy theorists, so it deserves some explanation. Barack Obama Sr. was born and educated in Nyanza Province, in southwestern Kenya, on Lake Victoria. This is the area where Obama’s family lived and continues to live; Sarah Obama, the step-grandmother of the president, lives in Nyang’oma Kogelo, a small town in the province. But Mombasa is a city on the Indian Ocean, a thousand miles to the east. It didn’t even have an international airport until 1979.


In September 2009, Orly Taitz attempted to introduce the second “Kenyan birth certificate” in the case of _Rhodes v. MacDonald_ as evidence that Barack Obama was born outside the United States U.S. District Court Judge Clay Land dismissed the complaint and threatened to sanction Ms. Taitz if she filed any similarly frivolous motions in the future:

Plaintiff has demonstrated no likelihood of success on the merits. Her claims are based on sheer conjecture and speculation. She alleges no factual basis for her “hunch” or “feeling” or subjective belief that the President was not born in the United States … Unlike in _Alice in Wonderland_, simply saying something is so does not make it so.

Plaintiff’s counsel, who champions herself as a defender of liberty and freedom, seeks to use the power of the judiciary to compel a citizen, albeit the President of the United States, to “prove his innocence” to “charges” that are based [solely] upon conjecture and speculation. Any middle school civics student would readily recognize the irony of abandoning [the] fundamental principles upon which our country was founded in order to purportedly “protect and preserve” those very principles.

Plaintiff’s counsel is hereby notified that the filing of any future actions in this Court, which are similarly frivolous, shall subject counsel to sanctions.

A spoof web site, the Republic of Kenya Birth Certificate Generator, allows Internet users to create their very own fake Certified Registration of Birth documents from Kenya.

FACT CHECK: Is This Barack Obama's Kenyan Certified Registration of Birth?

*The Obama is a Kenyan story has been debunked.
*
*



*​


----------



## blastoff

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....


Trump’s gonna do a hell of a lot better with black votes than in ‘16, but it won’t be anywhere near 95%.  But he will get enough to fuck the dims royally.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

blastoff said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> Trump’s gonna do a hell of a lot better with black votes than in ‘16, but it won’t be anywhere near 95%.  But he will get enough to fuck the dims royally.
Click to expand...

Just promise that if that doesn't happen -- you won't go calling those black voters slaves on a plantation for not voting the way you want...deal??


----------



## blastoff

Biff_Poindexter said:


> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> Trump’s gonna do a hell of a lot better with black votes than in ‘16, but it won’t be anywhere near 95%.  But he will get enough to fuck the dims royally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just promise that if that doesn't happen -- you won't go calling those black voters slaves on a plantation for not voting the way you want...deal??
Click to expand...

If the others want to stay on the plantation that’s their prerogative.  Maybe they’ll wake someday too, maybe not.


----------



## IM2

blastoff said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> Trump’s gonna do a hell of a lot better with black votes than in ‘16, but it won’t be anywhere near 95%.  But he will get enough to fuck the dims royally.
Click to expand...


No he will not. And I am not going to argue with a white trump supporter about blacks voting for trump when I am black and there ain't nobody in the black community  I live in, the next town over, the capital city of this state and the black communities of the largest 2 cities in this state that are supporting trump.


----------



## IM2

blastoff said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> blastoff said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> Trump’s gonna do a hell of a lot better with black votes than in ‘16, but it won’t be anywhere near 95%.  But he will get enough to fuck the dims royally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just promise that if that doesn't happen -- you won't go calling those black voters slaves on a plantation for not voting the way you want...deal??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the others want to stay on the plantation that’s their prerogative.  Maybe they’ll wake someday too, maybe not.
Click to expand...

Voting for trump is a vote for the plantation.


----------



## IM2

Gracie said:


> Candace Owens.



No spacey Gracie, Candace is an idiot. She is there to show a black face. But then again, brains ain't high on the republican agenda. Look at what you support now.


----------



## IM2

This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.

The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.[/QUOTE]


----------



## justoffal

IM2 said:


> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is Darrell Scott?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darrell Scott is a black pastor that supports trump. He's been trying to get blacks to support trump by giving them envelopes of cash at events his organization holds.
Click to expand...


That anything like food stamps?
Jo


----------



## justoffal

IM2 said:


> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.


[/QUOTE]

The Latinos have already arrived.
Too late.

Jo


----------



## justoffal

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
Click to expand...


What happened this year Martin?

Jo


----------



## Gracie

IM2 said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No spacey Gracie, Candace is an idiot. She is there to show a black face. But then again, brains ain't high on the republican agenda. Look at what you support now.
Click to expand...

You aare an embarrassment to your race.


----------



## IM2

Gracie said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No spacey Gracie, Candace is an idiot. She is there to show a black face. But then again, brains ain't high on the republican agenda. Look at what you support now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aare an embarrassment to your race.
Click to expand...

No, Candace Owen is. Go to a mostly black forum, brag on her and see what you get. You only like her because she says what loser whites like you need to hear.


----------



## IM2

justoffal said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
Click to expand...

I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is weird the way you say that, like it is something the Party does to the Candidate.
> 
> 
> It is up to the Candidate to win the Primary. The Party falls in line, after the voters choose the winner.
> 
> 
> That is the way it is supposed to go.
Click to expand...

No.  In fact, the DNC argued in court during the aftermath of the 2016 charade that is has no legal imperative to honor the wishes of primary voters in the general.


----------



## IM2

justoffal said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admiral Rockwell Tory said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is Darrell Scott?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Darrell Scott is a black pastor that supports trump. He's been trying to get blacks to support trump by giving them envelopes of cash at events his organization holds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That anything like food stamps?
> Jo
Click to expand...

I don't know. Never seen a food stamp. What do they look like?


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

IM2 said:


> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
Click to expand...

I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.[/QUOTE]



3M eligible Latino voters in 2020 versus 2016.


----------



## IM2

Bo Didleysquat said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.
Click to expand...




3M eligible Latino voters in 2020 versus 2016.[/QUOTE]

Yes and the majority of them will not be voting for trump.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

IM2 said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3M eligible Latino voters in 2020 versus 2016.
Click to expand...


Yes and the majority of them will not be voting for trump.[/QUOTE]

I suppose only the "and some I assume are fine people" ones of course.


----------



## justoffal

Bo Didleysquat said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3M eligible Latino voters in 2020 versus 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and the majority of them will not be voting for trump.
Click to expand...


I suppose only the "and some I assume are fine people" ones of course.[/QUOTE]

Nah.... Latinos tend to be conservative and they have no interest in paying reparations to anyone.

Jo


----------



## justoffal

IM2 said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3M eligible Latino voters in 2020 versus 2016.
Click to expand...


Yes and the majority of them will not be voting for trump.[/QUOTE]

The majority of them will not vote for any blacks either. You're completely missing the point here. By 2050 this nation will be a majority Latino Nation. The new question will not be whether or not you are Democrat or Republican. The new question will be: " Martin Luther quiero"?


----------



## rightwinger

No question Diamond and Silk are the future of the Republican Party


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

rightwinger said:


> No question Diamond and Silk are the future of the Republican Party



Running for nothing, like Rush, Limbaugh, Levin, Hammity and all the rest.  Cackling bobble head "social influencers".


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

justoffal said:


> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3M eligible Latino voters in 2020 versus 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and the majority of them will not be voting for trump.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I suppose only the "and some I assume are fine people" ones of course.
Click to expand...


Nah.... Latinos tend to be conservative and they have no interest in paying reparations to anyone.

Jo[/QUOTE]
Tell Don and Stephen Miller.


----------



## IM2

Bo Didleysquat said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3M eligible Latino voters in 2020 versus 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and the majority of them will not be voting for trump.
Click to expand...


I suppose only the "and some I assume are fine people" ones of course.[/QUOTE]
LOL!


----------



## IM2

justoffal said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bo Didleysquat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justoffal said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This post was not made for bodecea. It was for the republicans in here who keep talking crazy then wonder why blacks don't join their party.
> 
> The media isn't your problem. It's your policies. And until you nominate a black presidential candidate, the question will be, when will the so called color blind non racist, doesn't ever consider race, brag about the republicans 160 years ago freeing the slaves, no identity politics,  republicans ever nominate a black presidential candidate, a woman candidate or any candidate of color.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Latinos have already arrived.
> Too late.
> 
> Jo
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt that. The majority of Hispanics don't like trump and you're hoping  that you can get 20 percent black support for trump. That would mean you think that 4 out 5 blacks not liking trump is great. That's how delusional you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3M eligible Latino voters in 2020 versus 2016.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes and the majority of them will not be voting for trump.
Click to expand...


The majority of them will not vote for any blacks either. You're completely missing the point here. By 2050 this nation will be a majority Latino Nation. The new question will not be whether or not you are Democrat or Republican. The new question will be: " Martin Luther quiero"?[/QUOTE]

I'm not missing anything. Whites like you crack me up. 71 percent of all Hispanics voted for Obama and when the day comes a hispanic democrat runs expect at least 75 percent of all blacks to vote for that candidate. Had Castro been the nominee, he would have got the black vote. You see there is One thing you don't understand, Hispanics are not white and they have been mistreated badly by whites.

Latinos do understand and support reparations. You see, most Latinos as you call them, are descendants of Aztecs, Incas, Mayans and other what used to be called Indian tribes.


----------



## Death Angel

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


Blacks have to EARN the job just like everyone else.


----------



## Gracie

IM2 said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No spacey Gracie, Candace is an idiot. She is there to show a black face. But then again, brains ain't high on the republican agenda. Look at what you support now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aare an embarrassment to your race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Candace Owen is. Go to a mostly black forum, brag on her and see what you get. You only like her because she says what loser whites like you need to hear.
Click to expand...

If your black forums are anything like you....then yeah. You all are disgraces.


----------



## rightwinger

Whatever happened to the days Republicans had Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice?


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> Whatever happened to the days Republicans had Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice?



They weren't properly anti black enough as it turns out.


----------



## IM2

Gracie said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Candace Owens.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No spacey Gracie, Candace is an idiot. She is there to show a black face. But then again, brains ain't high on the republican agenda. Look at what you support now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You aare an embarrassment to your race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Candace Owen is. Go to a mostly black forum, brag on her and see what you get. You only like her because she says what loser whites like you need to hear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your black forums are anything like you....then yeah. You all are disgraces.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you love sellouts because they say what  you NEED to hear. They make you feel good about your racism. They validate your beliefs. But to us black folks, they discredit our experience and disgrace us. They keep the races divided because they give people like you cover. When we speak truth to you, you come back with well Candice Owens is black and she says.... And that allows you to continue your racist beliefs.


----------



## depotoo

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.


----------



## katsteve2012

rightwinger said:


> No question Diamond and Silk are the future of the Republican Party



SMGDH.  Who's next


IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happened to the days Republicans had Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't properly anti black enough as it turns out.
Click to expand...


They had the courage to call corruption what it is:

Colin Powell: The Republican Party Needs To 'Get a Grip' and Stand Up to Trump


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, so, because you perceive some racial aspect to conservative fans' support of Diamond and Silk,  you think that somehow obligates me to give what Hurd says, some sort of extra credibility?
> 
> 
> 
> That is an interesting chain of logic. Which I do not agree with.
> 
> 
> Hurd is welcome to his opinion. If he has something of substance to say, I will be happy to discuss it. But what you posted just sounded like more of the same old shit. So, consider it dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What was Diamond & Silk doing before they started grifting Trump voters?? Do you care? Nope...
> 
> They were Democrats before -- but they knew that buckdancing routine wouldn't play well there -- so they hitched onto Trump -- and what do you know, they get paid 2 million in "consulting fees"  For what? Entertainment... ..Do you even know their real names?? Nope...just as long they shuck and jive for you, that is all you care about...
> 
> but a man who worked 10 years in intelligence, who speaks other languages fluently, worked undercover in Pakistan -- who cares about that guy -- he doesn't shuck and jive for massa the way you think he should....its all about celebrating intellectual rot for you Trumpers...
Click to expand...




1. No, I don't really care about Diamond and Silk. Or what they did before. You seem to miss the point. The point is not who they are, but what they say. If what they say makes sense, it makes sense. If what they say, does not make sense, it does not.


2. Your appeal to authority is noted. If he has something to say, that is not the same old shit, I will be happy to discuss it.

3. You can take your racist shit, and shove it back up where you pulled it from in the first place.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happened to the days Republicans had Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't properly anti black enough as it turns out.
Click to expand...


Never heard them spouting “blacks deserve what happens to them” RW hate


----------



## luchitociencia

IM2 said:


> Darrell Scott is a black pastor that supports trump. He's been trying to get blacks to support trump by giving them envelopes of cash at events his organization holds.



Fried chicken and purple soda perhaps... but a black pastor giving cash money to his followers for president Trump re-election?... nobody will believe that.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do the only reason why chumps like Correll pump up black retards like those 3 is because they want to say they have blacks in the party so they can't be called racists. They aren't serious about black peoples concerns. The only reason they are lying about the republican party's entire history is to get enough blacks to vote  for trump so he gets a second term. Not because trump has any policies that actually address the issues blacks face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There should be many more African Americans in the Repub Party. It is a shame there are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there should be fewer.
Click to expand...


You just said in Post #4, Page 2: _"Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate."_

Now you're saying there should be fewer black Republicans. You want Republicans to nominate a black presidential candidate but you don't want any black Republicans.

So what is it you want here, a black Republican nominee? No black Republicans? Or maybe a Republican-nominated black Democrat? Which is it? Do you even know? And if the Republican party does nominate a black candidate, are you just going to dismiss him/her as an Uncle Tom?


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do the only reason why chumps like Correll pump up black retards like those 3 is because they want to say they have blacks in the party so they can't be called racists. They aren't serious about black peoples concerns. The only reason they are lying about the republican party's entire history is to get enough blacks to vote  for trump so he gets a second term. Not because trump has any policies that actually address the issues blacks face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There should be many more African Americans in the Repub Party. It is a shame there are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there should be fewer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said in Post #4, Page 2: _"Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate."_
> 
> Now you're saying there should be fewer black Republicans. You want Republicans to nominate a black presidential candidate but you don't want any black Republicans.
> 
> So what is it you want here, a black Republican nominee? No black Republicans? Or maybe a Republican-nominated black Democrat? Which is it? Do you even know? And if the Republican party does nominate a black candidate, are you just going to dismiss him/her as an Uncle Tom?
Click to expand...



He is just a monkey throwing shit against a wall, hoping something sticks.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do the only reason why chumps like Correll pump up black retards like those 3 is because they want to say they have blacks in the party so they can't be called racists. They aren't serious about black peoples concerns. The only reason they are lying about the republican party's entire history is to get enough blacks to vote  for trump so he gets a second term. Not because trump has any policies that actually address the issues blacks face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There should be many more African Americans in the Repub Party. It is a shame there are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there should be fewer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said in Post #4, Page 2: _"Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate."_
> 
> Now you're saying there should be fewer black Republicans. You want Republicans to nominate a black presidential candidate but you don't want any black Republicans.
> 
> So what is it you want here, a black Republican nominee? No black Republicans? Or maybe a Republican-nominated black Democrat? Which is it? Do you even know? And if the Republican party does nominate a black candidate, are you just going to dismiss him/her as an Uncle Tom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He is just a monkey throwing shit against a wall, hoping something sticks.
Click to expand...


He contradicts himself like this all the time.


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happened to the days Republicans had Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't properly anti black enough as it turns out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard them spouting “blacks deserve what happens to them” RW hate
Click to expand...

Nope and that's why they like blacks like Candice Slowen, Larry Sellout Elders and retard Jesse Peterson, because they do.


----------



## IM2

luchitociencia said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Darrell Scott is a black pastor that supports trump. He's been trying to get blacks to support trump by giving them envelopes of cash at events his organization holds.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fried chicken and purple soda perhaps... but a black pastor giving cash money to his followers for president Trump re-election?... nobody will believe that.
Click to expand...

Well since there is evidence shown that he has done it your trolling fails to consider one thing:






He ain't black.






And neither is he.


----------



## IM2

depotoo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
Click to expand...


Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know as well as I do the only reason why chumps like Correll pump up black retards like those 3 is because they want to say they have blacks in the party so they can't be called racists. They aren't serious about black peoples concerns. The only reason they are lying about the republican party's entire history is to get enough blacks to vote  for trump so he gets a second term. Not because trump has any policies that actually address the issues blacks face.
> 
> 
> 
> There should be many more African Americans in the Repub Party. It is a shame there are not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there should be fewer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You just said in Post #4, Page 2: _"Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate."_
> 
> Now you're saying there should be fewer black Republicans. You want Republicans to nominate a black presidential candidate but you don't want any black Republicans.
> 
> So what is it you want here, a black Republican nominee? No black Republicans? Or maybe a Republican-nominated black Democrat? Which is it? Do you even know? And if the Republican party does nominate a black candidate, are you just going to dismiss him/her as an Uncle Tom?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He is just a monkey throwing shit against a wall, hoping something sticks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He contradicts himself like this all the time.
Click to expand...




All leftards do. THey just say shit. THe moment you take a serious look at the shit they say, it falls apart.


Good catch on your part on this one. He is attacking republicans for not having a black presidential candidate, while arguing that no blacks should be republicans. 

HIlarious.


----------



## 22lcidw

IM2 said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
Click to expand...

Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.


----------



## rightwinger

Let’s face it....

Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks. 

I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.




Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.


And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.


Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.



You fucking asshole.


Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.


----------



## IM2

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
Click to expand...

No, Obama won because he was a better option than McCain and Romney. And he didn't divide anything. You racists got mad because a black man was elected president and your behavior got worse. That's what happened. And since I am black I don't need some white racist telling me what they see as African American views. Had Obama governed pro black you assholes would have acted up even worse and would have become even more violent. He saved this nation from a depression and turned the economy around. He was the best president in modern times and perhaps one of the best in history. The lies whites like you tell yourselves cannot change that. There is way too much documented proof that shuts you up.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> 
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Obama won because he was a better option than McCain and Romney. And he didn't divide anything. You racists got mad because a black man was elected president and your behavior got worse. That's what happened. And since I am black I don't need some white racist telling me what they see as African American views. Had Obama governed pro black you assholes would have acted up even worse and would have become even more violent. He saved this nation from a depression and turned the economy around. He was the best president in modern times and perhaps one of the best in history. The lies whites like you tell yourselves cannot change that. There is way too much documented proof that shuts you up.
Click to expand...




We republicans were not upset because a black man was president. Go fuck yourself.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

22lcidw said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
Click to expand...

Shut yo bitch ass up


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Obama won because he was a better option than McCain and Romney. And he didn't divide anything. You racists got mad because a black man was elected president and your behavior got worse. That's what happened. And since I am black I don't need some white racist telling me what they see as African American views. Had Obama governed pro black you assholes would have acted up even worse and would have become even more violent. He saved this nation from a depression and turned the economy around. He was the best president in modern times and perhaps one of the best in history. The lies whites like you tell yourselves cannot change that. There is way too much documented proof that shuts you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We republicans were not upset because a black man was president. Go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

and you shut yo lying ass up too....


----------



## IM2

Not only were the racists in the republican party mad because a black man won the presidency twice, they still are mad about it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Not only were the racists in the republican party mad because a black man won the presidency twice, they still are mad about it.



Well of course the _racists _were mad about it. But the non-racists were not.

Speaking for myself, I didn't give two shits that Obama was black. What bothered me was that he was nominated _because_ he's black.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
Click to expand...

The numbers don’t lie

Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent. 
White, male, Protestant


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Obama won because he was a better option than McCain and Romney. And he didn't divide anything. You racists got mad because a black man was elected president and your behavior got worse. That's what happened. And since I am black I don't need some white racist telling me what they see as African American views. Had Obama governed pro black you assholes would have acted up even worse and would have become even more violent. He saved this nation from a depression and turned the economy around. He was the best president in modern times and perhaps one of the best in history. The lies whites like you tell yourselves cannot change that. There is way too much documented proof that shuts you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We republicans were not upset because a black man was president. Go fuck yourself.
Click to expand...

You guys peed yourself when Obama was elected. 

You had to tell your faithful that Obama was not a “real president” because  he was a Muslim and not born in America


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Obama won because he was a better option than McCain and Romney. And he didn't divide anything. You racists got mad because a black man was elected president and your behavior got worse. That's what happened. And since I am black I don't need some white racist telling me what they see as African American views. Had Obama governed pro black you assholes would have acted up even worse and would have become even more violent. He saved this nation from a depression and turned the economy around. He was the best president in modern times and perhaps one of the best in history. The lies whites like you tell yourselves cannot change that. There is way too much documented proof that shuts you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We republicans were not upset because a black man was president. Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and you shut yo lying ass up too....
Click to expand...



No. Never. What you going to do about it now, tough guy?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
Click to expand...




Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Obama won because he was a better option than McCain and Romney. And he didn't divide anything. You racists got mad because a black man was elected president and your behavior got worse. That's what happened. And since I am black I don't need some white racist telling me what they see as African American views. Had Obama governed pro black you assholes would have acted up even worse and would have become even more violent. He saved this nation from a depression and turned the economy around. He was the best president in modern times and perhaps one of the best in history. The lies whites like you tell yourselves cannot change that. There is way too much documented proof that shuts you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We republicans were not upset because a black man was president. Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys peed yourself when Obama was elected.
> 
> You had to tell your faithful that Obama was not a “real president” because  he was a Muslim and not born in America
Click to expand...



We were unhappy to have lost the election. And increasingly bitter about what fucking asshole his partisans were, as we opposed him on partisan and ideological grounds.


That you insist of pretending it was any more than that, is just you being a fucking faggot asshole. So fuck you.


----------



## Desperado

*The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....A Long Time Coming*


----------



## Correll

Desperado said:


> *The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....A Long Time Coming*




Considering the low numbers of blacks in the party, and the way the press dogpiles any black republican that rises to leadership levels, AND that Trump and Pence have their turns to use up,

yes, it probably will be a while. 



I mean,  you don't really care about that, do you? If Trump magically became black, right now, would it change anything for you?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
Click to expand...


8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Stop whining. Name me a democrat keeps saying Ben Carson wasn't born in America.
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Obama won because he was a better option than McCain and Romney. And he didn't divide anything. You racists got mad because a black man was elected president and your behavior got worse. That's what happened. And since I am black I don't need some white racist telling me what they see as African American views. Had Obama governed pro black you assholes would have acted up even worse and would have become even more violent. He saved this nation from a depression and turned the economy around. He was the best president in modern times and perhaps one of the best in history. The lies whites like you tell yourselves cannot change that. There is way too much documented proof that shuts you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We republicans were not upset because a black man was president. Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys peed yourself when Obama was elected.
> 
> You had to tell your faithful that Obama was not a “real president” because  he was a Muslim and not born in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We were unhappy to have lost the election. And increasingly bitter about what fucking asshole his partisans were, as we opposed him on partisan and ideological grounds.
> 
> 
> That you insist of pretending it was any more than that, is just you being a fucking faggot asshole. So fuck you.
Click to expand...

LOL

You elected a fucking birther


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
Click to expand...



Says the fucking asshole that doesn't let a day pass without spreading vicious race baiting lies about republicans, you fucking faggot.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson is not President. Lets face it. Obama won a popularity contest due to his cultural background. He was not the only person in history to do so for any reason. Face it. He sucked! He could have been a uniter. Instead he divided by pure political partisan agendas. And the main agendas really go against many African American views.
> 
> 
> 
> No, Obama won because he was a better option than McCain and Romney. And he didn't divide anything. You racists got mad because a black man was elected president and your behavior got worse. That's what happened. And since I am black I don't need some white racist telling me what they see as African American views. Had Obama governed pro black you assholes would have acted up even worse and would have become even more violent. He saved this nation from a depression and turned the economy around. He was the best president in modern times and perhaps one of the best in history. The lies whites like you tell yourselves cannot change that. There is way too much documented proof that shuts you up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We republicans were not upset because a black man was president. Go fuck yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You guys peed yourself when Obama was elected.
> 
> You had to tell your faithful that Obama was not a “real president” because  he was a Muslim and not born in America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We were unhappy to have lost the election. And increasingly bitter about what fucking asshole his partisans were, as we opposed him on partisan and ideological grounds.
> 
> 
> That you insist of pretending it was any more than that, is just you being a fucking faggot asshole. So fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You elected a fucking birther
Click to expand...



Which does not change the facts of what I said. Or even challenge it, you fucking race baiting moron.


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
Click to expand...


Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.

It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
Click to expand...



I have never said that blacks should be republican because of Lincoln. 


i've said blacks should be republican because republican policies are better for the country as a whole and/o match with the personal beliefs of individual blacks.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the fucking asshole that doesn't let a day pass without spreading vicious race baiting lies about republicans, you fucking faggot.
Click to expand...

The only lie is that is really more like 8 blacks in the last 150 years.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
Click to expand...

It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises. 
In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life. 

Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
Click to expand...

For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
Click to expand...

The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
Click to expand...

Such as...?

But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> 
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> 
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
Click to expand...

They opposed gay rights

Still do


----------



## Lastamender

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


Probably because color has nothing to do with qualifications.


----------



## Lastamender

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> 
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They opposed gay rights
> 
> Still do
Click to expand...

Nobody is perfect. But show me in their platform where it says that.


----------



## IM2

+


Lastamender said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because color has nothing to do with qualifications.
Click to expand...

You can stop trying that one.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> 
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
Click to expand...


No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.


----------



## LuckyDuck

basquebromance said:


> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns


Donald Trump has shown that you definitely don't need to be an actual politician to do a good job, thus my thoughts are on two individuals (President and Vice-President):
Conservative and known strong supporter of the Second Amendment for president:  Colion Noir (or Sheriff David Clarke).
Conservative speaker for Vice-President:  Candace Owens.


----------



## Lastamender

IM2 said:


> +
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because color has nothing to do with qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can stop trying that one.
Click to expand...

Not trying anything. The identity politics is all yours. It is an important tool in exploiting race. Therefore it helps your race baiting.


----------



## Chuz Life

I really thought that Condi Rice had a good shot. 

I wonder how she is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let’s face it....
> 
> Republicans have only elected eight blacks to higher office in the last hundred years. President, Governor, Senator, Congress......just EIGHT Republican blacks.
> 
> I doubt we will see a black Republican President in the next hundred years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
Click to expand...


My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.

They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".

They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.

There will never be another black POTUS in America again.

After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
Click to expand...


The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.


----------



## IM2

Lastamender said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> +
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because color has nothing to do with qualifications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can stop trying that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not trying anything. The identity politics is all yours. It is an important tool in exploiting race. Therefore it helps your race baiting.
Click to expand...

Wring answer. This country has used identity politics since 1776.


----------



## IM2

LuckyDuck said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has shown that you definitely don't need to be an actual politician to do a good job, thus my thoughts are on two individuals (President and Vice-President):
> Conservative and known strong supporter of the Second Amendment for president:  Colion Noir (or Sheriff David Clarke).
> Conservative speaker for Vice-President:  Candace Owens.
Click to expand...

trump has been a failure. Sheriff Clarke is mentally retarded and Candice Owens is dumber than he is..


----------



## Dale Smith

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
Click to expand...


Seems the the demcrats and poverty pimps only show up at election time, get you all riled up like the "Obamaphone Lady" and then forget ya until the next election cycle.


----------



## IM2

Dale Smith said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems the the demcrats and poverty pimps only show up at election time, get you all riled up like the "Obamaphone Lady" and then forget ya until the next election cycle.
Click to expand...

Republicans don't even consider that we exist and then they have punks like you who try telling us what we live through doesn't happen. There is no such thing as an Obama phone and millions of whites were/are using that same program.


----------



## Dale Smith

IM2 said:


> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has shown that you definitely don't need to be an actual politician to do a good job, thus my thoughts are on two individuals (President and Vice-President):
> Conservative and known strong supporter of the Second Amendment for president:  Colion Noir (or Sheriff David Clarke).
> Conservative speaker for Vice-President:  Candace Owens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trump has been a failure. Sheriff Clarke is mentally retarded and Candice Owens is dumber than he is..
Click to expand...


Having read your fool fueled rants of vapid nothingness for a few years now? You seem to be as pissed today as you were when Barrypuppet was riding high. Are you one of those types that live to have a bug lodged up your ass and anger is actually fulfilling for you? Just askin'.........


----------



## NoNukes

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
Click to expand...


This is an old article, but the writer did an exceptional job of explaining the psychology behind the term "Democrat Plantation", as well as the psychosis of FAR right black conservatives who use the term.

A childhood  friend of mine who is a professor at SDSU emailed this to me, and believes this to be 21st century code language that is being used to shame ill informed, gullible black citizens into committing to a right leaning political party, in spite of the fact that NEITHER party represents the best interests of black voters.

Opinion | Blacks, Conservatives and Plantations


----------



## Dale Smith

IM2 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems the the demcrats and poverty pimps only show up at election time, get you all riled up like the "Obamaphone Lady" and then forget ya until the next election cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don't even consider that we exist and then they have punks like you who try telling us what we live through doesn't happen. There is no such thing as an Obama phone and millions of whites were/are using that same program.
Click to expand...



I don't belong to either bought and paid for political party. I left the right versus left paradigm almost a decade ago. It has to suck for you that you can't put me in some neat little category that makes it easier for you to spew hatred for and against. Feel free to simply hate me for the tint of my skin........it's not gonna cause me to lose any sleep or any of that shit......


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an old article, but the writer did an exceptional job of explaining the psychology behind the term "Democrat Plantation", as well as the psychosis of FAR right black conservatives who use the term.
> 
> A childhood  friend of mine who is a professor at SDSU emailed this to me, and believes this to be 21st century code language that is being used to shame ill informed, gullible black citizens into committing to a right leaning political party, in spite of the fact that NEITHER party represents the best interests of black voters.
> 
> Opinion | Blacks, Conservatives and Plantations
Click to expand...


That's exactly what it is. And even worse, they find these dumb blacks to go out and talk this shit. Idiots like Larry Elders, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Candice Owns, Shelby Teele, Star Parker, etc.


----------



## IM2

Dale Smith said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has shown that you definitely don't need to be an actual politician to do a good job, thus my thoughts are on two individuals (President and Vice-President):
> Conservative and known strong supporter of the Second Amendment for president:  Colion Noir (or Sheriff David Clarke).
> Conservative speaker for Vice-President:  Candace Owens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trump has been a failure. Sheriff Clarke is mentally retarded and Candice Owens is dumber than he is..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having read your fool fueled rants of vapid nothingness for a few years now? You seem to be as pissed today as you were when Barrypuppet was riding high. Are you one of those types that live to have a bug lodged up your ass and anger is actually fulfilling for you? Just askin'.........
Click to expand...


I've spoken fact. You can't  handle it.


----------



## IM2

Dale Smith said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems the the demcrats and poverty pimps only show up at election time, get you all riled up like the "Obamaphone Lady" and then forget ya until the next election cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don't even consider that we exist and then they have punks like you who try telling us what we live through doesn't happen. There is no such thing as an Obama phone and millions of whites were/are using that same program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't belong to either bought and paid for political party. I left the right versus left paradigm almost a decade ago. It has to suck for you that you can't put me in some neat little category that makes it easier for you to spew hatred for and against. Feel free to simply hate me for the tint of my skin........it's not gonna cause me to lose any sleep or any of that shit......
Click to expand...


You're a right wing idiot.


----------



## Dale Smith

NoNukes said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
Click to expand...


I believe that there are more blacks that are more than capable of leading this country than white Europeans
because they understand this debt based monetary system better because they have gotten the rotten end of it as much as the blue collar whites. They understand this robber baron type of crony capitalism/"the good ol boy network" of elites that belong to Ivy League secret societies that have the golden ticket because of their bloodlines. I don't ever see an equitable system being put in place as long as the "blue bloods" believe that they have the divine right to rule.


----------



## Dale Smith

IM2 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has shown that you definitely don't need to be an actual politician to do a good job, thus my thoughts are on two individuals (President and Vice-President):
> Conservative and known strong supporter of the Second Amendment for president:  Colion Noir (or Sheriff David Clarke).
> Conservative speaker for Vice-President:  Candace Owens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trump has been a failure. Sheriff Clarke is mentally retarded and Candice Owens is dumber than he is..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having read your fool fueled rants of vapid nothingness for a few years now? You seem to be as pissed today as you were when Barrypuppet was riding high. Are you one of those types that live to have a bug lodged up your ass and anger is actually fulfilling for you? Just askin'.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spoken fact. You can't  handle it.
Click to expand...



There hasn't been a single thing that you have written that I "can't handle". I weigh, consider and reflect. All I see from you is unfettered anger and an unwillingness to let go of the past even though there are those like myself that see us all in the same fight and it's worse than you could even imagine as to what is being planned for all of us that are not in the .000001 percent.


----------



## Dale Smith

IM2 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seems the the demcrats and poverty pimps only show up at election time, get you all riled up like the "Obamaphone Lady" and then forget ya until the next election cycle.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don't even consider that we exist and then they have punks like you who try telling us what we live through doesn't happen. There is no such thing as an Obama phone and millions of whites were/are using that same program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't belong to either bought and paid for political party. I left the right versus left paradigm almost a decade ago. It has to suck for you that you can't put me in some neat little category that makes it easier for you to spew hatred for and against. Feel free to simply hate me for the tint of my skin........it's not gonna cause me to lose any sleep or any of that shit......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a right wing idiot.
Click to expand...


I am not a believer in liberation theology...if that makes me some kind of "rightwinger" in your beady little narrow vision of the world? So be it.........I will sleep well with nary a worry of your opinion of me. I definitely know and understand more than you because I have made it my mission to understand the nature of the cage.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an old article, but the writer did an exceptional job of explaining the psychology behind the term "Democrat Plantation", as well as the psychosis of FAR right black conservatives who use the term.
> 
> A childhood  friend of mine who is a professor at SDSU emailed this to me, and believes this to be 21st century code language that is being used to shame ill informed, gullible black citizens into committing to a right leaning political party, in spite of the fact that NEITHER party represents the best interests of black voters.
> 
> Opinion | Blacks, Conservatives and Plantations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it is. And even worse, they find these dumb blacks to go out and talk this shit. Idiots like Larry Elders, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Candice Owns, Shelby Teele, Star Parker, etc.
Click to expand...

 
Yes indeed. But like Joe Madison says, "this is nothing new". All of the above are just another generation of Booker T. Washingtons.


----------



## rightwinger

Lastamender said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> 
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They opposed gay rights
> 
> Still do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is perfect. But show me in their platform where it says that.
Click to expand...

“Marriage is between one man and one woman”


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the fucking asshole that doesn't let a day pass without spreading vicious race baiting lies about republicans, you fucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only lie is that is really more like 8 blacks in the last 150 years.
Click to expand...



Which proves nothing. By your logic, you dems are racist and sexist because the blacks and women in your primary lost, and the last men standing are old white men.


You fucktard.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
Click to expand...



1. Republicans did not sell out their values in the 60s to pander to racists. That is a lie told by fucking assholes like RW.

2. Wage stagnation is a complicated issue, and the labor pool being flooded by immigrant labor, is certainly part of the issue, you fucking race baiting asshole.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
Click to expand...



THe social programs of FDR got a lot of black voters to switch parties. WAY before the 60s. 


The Southern Strategy is a myth. A lie told by assholes to smear their enemies.


----------



## Correll

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
Click to expand...



Libs just say shit. It don't mean nuthin.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the fucking asshole that doesn't let a day pass without spreading vicious race baiting lies about republicans, you fucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only lie is that is really more like 8 blacks in the last 150 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which proves nothing. By your logic, you dems are racist and sexist because the blacks and women in your primary lost, and the last men standing are old white men.
> 
> 
> You fucktard.
Click to expand...

It proves Republicans do not elect black people. 
If you have statistics to show otherwise, you are welcome to post them


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe social programs of FDR got a lot of black voters to switch parties. WAY before the 60s.
> 
> 
> The Southern Strategy is a myth. A lie told by assholes to smear their enemies.
Click to expand...

The Southern Strategy worked 
LBJ predicted that he would lose the South to Republicans. 

Want proof?
The south voted for Goldwater in 64.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties. They spend decades telling blacks that republicans are evil and racist.
> 
> 
> And then attack republicans for not having more blacks in the party.
> 
> 
> Someday, someone will invent a word, to describe that level of asshole. To date, the english language is not up to the task.
> 
> 
> 
> You fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> Go eat a dick. And choke on it. And die.
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
Click to expand...




Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Says the fucking asshole that doesn't let a day pass without spreading vicious race baiting lies about republicans, you fucking faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only lie is that is really more like 8 blacks in the last 150 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which proves nothing. By your logic, you dems are racist and sexist because the blacks and women in your primary lost, and the last men standing are old white men.
> 
> 
> You fucktard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It proves Republicans do not elect black people.
> If you have statistics to show otherwise, you are welcome to post them
Click to expand...






Herman Cain was not elected, because he was destroyed by the vile media. ANd he probably would have lost to Obama if he had not been.


Obama winning, would not have been a fault of Republicans, but Obama appealing to moderates better than Cain would have.


That you want to spin it as evidence of something bad about republicans, is just you being a fucking asshole.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is more than Republicans not keeping their promises.
> In the mid 60s they sold out their values to embrace the disgruntled racists  in the south and elsewhere. They know what buttons to push in scapegoating minorities and immigrants for all our problems in life.
> 
> Working Americans are not struggling because of their employers manipulating the workforce....you are struggling because some poor woman gets food stamps or god forbid.... a cell phone
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe social programs of FDR got a lot of black voters to switch parties. WAY before the 60s.
> 
> 
> The Southern Strategy is a myth. A lie told by assholes to smear their enemies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Southern Strategy worked
> LBJ predicted that he would lose the South to Republicans.
> 
> Want proof?
> The south voted for Goldwater in 64.
Click to expand...




There was no Southern Strategy. Nixon did more to desegregate Southern Schools than anyone. 


Sure. The GOP won the South in 64. Carter won it in 76.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
Click to expand...

It was nothing new

Just another rehash of “States can restrict the Civil Rights of their citizens if they want to”

If a state wants have second class citizens, they are free to do so. Even if those citizens are not allowed to vote.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The numbers don’t lie
> 
> Republicans do not welcome blacks in their tent.
> White, male, Protestant
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
Click to expand...


Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?

It appears that you "assumed" what I think.

Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
Click to expand...

He is putting words in your mouth so he can argue about that instead of the reality of what you said...that is what he does.....


Which is why he gets slapped up and down this message board for sport...


----------



## 22lcidw

rightwinger said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They opposed gay rights
> 
> Still do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is perfect. But show me in their platform where it says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Marriage is between one man and one woman”
Click to expand...

And that will return when an economic or financial or disaster happens to make a lot of people poorer and ornery due to the false promises over the decades from government. You don't like Trump. Many others do not like Prog leaders. There will be a despot with the answers. Many of them in fact.


----------



## rightwinger

22lcidw said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They opposed gay rights
> 
> Still do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is perfect. But show me in their platform where it says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Marriage is between one man and one woman”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that will return when an economic or financial or disaster happens to make a lot of people poorer and ornery due to the false promises over the decades from government. You don't like Trump. Many others do not like Prog leaders. There will be a despot with the answers. Many of them in fact.
Click to expand...

We are headed for economic disaster because gays can get married?


----------



## IM2

Dale Smith said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> not Ben Carson...CANDACE OWENS!
> 
> with VP Darrell Scott and Press Sec Pastor Burns
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has shown that you definitely don't need to be an actual politician to do a good job, thus my thoughts are on two individuals (President and Vice-President):
> Conservative and known strong supporter of the Second Amendment for president:  Colion Noir (or Sheriff David Clarke).
> Conservative speaker for Vice-President:  Candace Owens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trump has been a failure. Sheriff Clarke is mentally retarded and Candice Owens is dumber than he is..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having read your fool fueled rants of vapid nothingness for a few years now? You seem to be as pissed today as you were when Barrypuppet was riding high. Are you one of those types that live to have a bug lodged up your ass and anger is actually fulfilling for you? Just askin'.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spoken fact. You can't  handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single thing that you have written that I "can't handle". I weigh, consider and reflect. All I see from you is unfettered anger and an unwillingness to let go of the past even though there are those like myself that see us all in the same fight and it's worse than you could even imagine as to what is being planned for all of us that are not in the .000001 percent.
Click to expand...


You do not weigh or consider anything. You deny. This is not about the past idiot, it is all about right now. We are talking about continuing white racism. If white racism was a thing of the past, we would not be talking about it because it would not exist. So you can't be weighing or considering anything. Second, why people like you can be mad at what you claim is some kind of debt based monetary system but then act like we should not be angry because we get treated with no respect shows that you don't weigh or consider, but that you think we have no right to be angry and that we should just take it.

Whites give our theology a name, but you not believing in liberation theology shows that you have chosen to dismiss the experience blacks have had in America completely. What you believe is the same thing as white extremists. I generally have chosen to ignore your ignorance because what you believe is crazy. Your monetary system would not work and you really don't understand the nature of anything. And when you talk about being rooted in the past, your belief is some system based on a decision made during the depression is nothing but a belief based on the past and a lack of understanding of how our system operates based on conspiracy theories.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an old article, but the writer did an exceptional job of explaining the psychology behind the term "Democrat Plantation", as well as the psychosis of FAR right black conservatives who use the term.
> 
> A childhood  friend of mine who is a professor at SDSU emailed this to me, and believes this to be 21st century code language that is being used to shame ill informed, gullible black citizens into committing to a right leaning political party, in spite of the fact that NEITHER party represents the best interests of black voters.
> 
> Opinion | Blacks, Conservatives and Plantations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it is. And even worse, they find these dumb blacks to go out and talk this shit. Idiots like Larry Elders, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Candice Owns, Shelby Teele, Star Parker, etc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed. But like Joe Madison says, "this is nothing new". All of the above are just another generation of Booker T. Washingtons.
Click to expand...


Joe Madison doesn't play. He's a truth teller/. I like him.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
Click to expand...


Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.


----------



## DrLove

I'm going with Kanye, Mike Tyson or Michael the Black Man but never rule out the intellectual wing - Diamond and Silk. The bench is deep!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
Click to expand...

and yet MORE republicans voted for the Civil rights act then democrats.


----------



## 22lcidw

rightwinger said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> 
> 
> They opposed gay rights
> 
> Still do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is perfect. But show me in their platform where it says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Marriage is between one man and one woman”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that will return when an economic or financial or disaster happens to make a lot of people poorer and ornery due to the false promises over the decades from government. You don't like Trump. Many others do not like Prog leaders. There will be a despot with the answers. Many of them in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are headed for economic disaster because gays can get married?
Click to expand...

More perhaps the morals that changed in sexual ways and made Hetero marriage a joke that enabled gays to get married. A lot of single parents out there.......a lot of them.....


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet MORE republicans voted for the Civil rights act then democrats.
Click to expand...


You guys really need to quit this shit.

The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, by a vote of 228-186  on Friday. *Just one Republican — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — voted for it,* while 186 Republicans voted no.

House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote


----------



## Jitss617

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EvilEyeFleegle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> The 14th of never...LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is a stupid thing to say. Plenty of good candidates in just the last few years. I'm sure there will be more once Trump and Pence have their turns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps those candidates should try to get elected to congressional and senate seats so Tim Scott won't be the ONLY BLACK REPUBLICAN in elected to DC -- and no, the other black guy isn't running for re-election....because he said stuff like this about your Trump cult...
> 
> *“Don’t be a racist,” Mr. Hurd went on to say, according to the **The Washington Blade**. “Don’t be a misogynist, right? Don’t be a homophobe. These are real basic things that we all should learn when we were in kindergarten.”*
> 
> *Will Hurd, Only Black Republican in House, Is Retiring From Congress*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Don't know, don't really care why they choose to not run for lesser office. Someone probably asked them, at sometime. If you care, you could look it up.
> 
> 2. The support for Trump seems pretty normal to me. Your spin of calling it a "cult" is just you being an asshole. So, fuck off.
> 
> 3. Why do you think that I would care about what Hurd has to say? "ists?" And "phobes"? Sounds like the same old shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anytime a Diamond and Silk say the corniest rudimentary shit, morons like you cheer and treat them like rock stars -- trumpers like yourself believe Candace Owens is the second coming of Sarah Palin and want her to run for president -- all for putting on a minstrel show for goofy ass Trumpers....
> 
> But when it comes to serious minded people who don't put on a Stepin Fechit routine for closet racists -- then suddenly its "Who cares"
> View attachment 311278
> 
> -- its almost like you want to keep the black republicans around for entertaintment instead of actual policy making...
Click to expand...

Uncle toms were blacks kissing the ass of DEMOCRATS.. that would be black democrats...


----------



## Jitss617

How black Republicans are debunking the myth of a voter monolith


----------



## Jitss617

Black, Millennial, Female and… Conservative


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet MORE republicans voted for the Civil rights act then democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys really need to quit this shit.
> 
> The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, by a vote of 228-186  on Friday. *Just one Republican — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — voted for it,* while 186 Republicans voted no.
> 
> House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote
Click to expand...

Look RETARD we were talking about the Civil rights act, god you are pathetic. As for the bill you cited it had major flaws if you had bothered to read it. Anything created by democrats is usually designed to benefit democrats and disenfranchise republicans.


----------



## EvilEyeFleegle

Jitss617 said:


> View attachment 311998 How black Republicans are debunking the myth of a voter monolith


And not one Conservative..Liberals all..as the Republican party WAS the party of the left...at that time.  Those Blacks you cited were all products of Reconstruction--with the vast multitude of southern whites unable to vote--as their franchise had not yet been returned to them. 

Learn history Jitler....you might embarrass yourself a lot less!


----------



## rightwinger

22lcidw said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They opposed gay rights
> 
> Still do
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is perfect. But show me in their platform where it says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Marriage is between one man and one woman”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that will return when an economic or financial or disaster happens to make a lot of people poorer and ornery due to the false promises over the decades from government. You don't like Trump. Many others do not like Prog leaders. There will be a despot with the answers. Many of them in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are headed for economic disaster because gays can get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More perhaps the morals that changed in sexual ways and made Hetero marriage a joke that enabled gays to get married. A lot of single parents out there.......a lot of them.....
Click to expand...

Last I checked
Heterosexuals can still marry

Maybe your marriage is a joke but mine is solid


----------



## rightwinger

Jitss617 said:


> View attachment 311998 How black Republicans are debunking the myth of a voter monolith


Funny

Same number of blacks Republicans have elected since


----------



## Jitss617

EvilEyeFleegle said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 311998 How black Republicans are debunking the myth of a voter monolith
> 
> 
> 
> And not one Conservative..Liberals all..as the Republican party WAS the party of the left...at that time.  Those Blacks you cited were all products of Reconstruction--with the vast multitude of southern whites unable to vote--as their franchise had not yet been returned to them.
> 
> Learn history Jitler....you might embarrass yourself a lot less!
Click to expand...

And we are still progressives look at Trump is doing an amazing job progressing America forward


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet MORE republicans voted for the Civil rights act then democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys really need to quit this shit.
> 
> The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, by a vote of 228-186  on Friday. *Just one Republican — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — voted for it,* while 186 Republicans voted no.
> 
> House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look RETARD we were talking about the Civil rights act, god you are pathetic. As for the bill you cited it had major flaws if you had bothered to read it. Anything created by democrats is usually designed to benefit democrats and disenfranchise republicans.
Click to expand...


Look retard, you were trying to give todays republicans credit for being a party of racial equality based on their vote on civil rights in the 1960's. That bill was not created to benefit democrats and it had few if any flaws. I have read the bill hundreds of times idiot, and I certainly won't be listening to some racist white assholes opinion of it.


----------



## 22lcidw

rightwinger said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody is perfect. But show me in their platform where it says that.
> 
> 
> 
> “Marriage is between one man and one woman”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that will return when an economic or financial or disaster happens to make a lot of people poorer and ornery due to the false promises over the decades from government. You don't like Trump. Many others do not like Prog leaders. There will be a despot with the answers. Many of them in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are headed for economic disaster because gays can get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More perhaps the morals that changed in sexual ways and made Hetero marriage a joke that enabled gays to get married. A lot of single parents out there.......a lot of them.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked
> Heterosexuals can still marry
> 
> Maybe your marriage is a joke but mine is solid
Click to expand...

The instiution is a joke. Stats prove it. and 50% of the millennial males  are not even considering marriage. More to the point will not get married. But we all get charged for this. Lets have freedom but not get charged for everything. Why? because there are plenty of people who are not getting into the cheaper or no cost help who are above the poverty line.  We really do need a stock market collapse. A big one. I do not know if that will happen. and maybe really do not want to experience it. But I damn well bet you will change your opinion on this issue if it does happen. Suffering is a mutha!


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was nothing new
> 
> Just another rehash of “States can restrict the Civil Rights of their citizens if they want to”
> 
> If a state wants have second class citizens, they are free to do so. Even if those citizens are not allowed to vote.
Click to expand...



Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your ass? You race baiting asshole.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbers do lie. And so do you, you fucking asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
Click to expand...



If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement. 


It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.


If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is putting words in your mouth so he can argue about that instead of the reality of what you said...that is what he does.....
> 
> 
> Which is why he gets slapped up and down this message board for sport...
Click to expand...




Except I didn't. And I don't. I have kicked your ass here, and you know it, loser.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
Click to expand...



Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet MORE republicans voted for the Civil rights act then democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys really need to quit this shit.
> 
> The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, by a vote of 228-186  on Friday. *Just one Republican — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — voted for it,* while 186 Republicans voted no.
> 
> House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look RETARD we were talking about the Civil rights act, god you are pathetic. As for the bill you cited it had major flaws if you had bothered to read it. Anything created by democrats is usually designed to benefit democrats and disenfranchise republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look retard, you were trying to give todays republicans credit for being a party of racial equality based on their vote on civil rights in the 1960's. That bill was not created to benefit democrats and it had few if any flaws. I have read the bill hundreds of times idiot, and I certainly won't be listening to some racist white assholes opinion of it.
Click to expand...

You don't get to change the goal post we were talking about the civil rights act so you are simply WRONG. As a matter of fact you were specifically talking about why after 67 the blacks left the republican party and you claimed it was because of Goldwater and the civil rights act.


----------



## rightwinger

22lcidw said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> “Marriage is between one man and one woman”
> 
> 
> 
> And that will return when an economic or financial or disaster happens to make a lot of people poorer and ornery due to the false promises over the decades from government. You don't like Trump. Many others do not like Prog leaders. There will be a despot with the answers. Many of them in fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are headed for economic disaster because gays can get married?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More perhaps the morals that changed in sexual ways and made Hetero marriage a joke that enabled gays to get married. A lot of single parents out there.......a lot of them.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Last I checked
> Heterosexuals can still marry
> 
> Maybe your marriage is a joke but mine is solid
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The instiution is a joke. Stats prove it. and 50% of the millennial males  are not even considering marriage. More to the point will not get married. But we all get charged for this. Lets have freedom but not get charged for everything. Why? because there are plenty of people who are not getting into the cheaper or no cost help who are above the poverty line.  We really do need a stock market collapse. A big one. I do not know if that will happen. and maybe really do not want to experience it. But I damn well bet you will change your opinion on this issue if it does happen. Suffering is a mutha!
Click to expand...

Maybe your marriage

You think people are putting off marriage because gays are allowed to marry?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
Click to expand...

Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?

Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
Click to expand...




We were talking about Barry Goldwater and the republican party. No republican I know of, opposed the Civil Rights Bill that we were talking about, as "overreach" while supporting segregation and/or Jim Crow.


It was certainly never the platform of the Party. 


If he was not talking about Goldwater, then who was he talking about, and why? Perhaps he should have explained if he was completely changing the subject and why.


If he was.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
Click to expand...


Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.

There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.

When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Blacks are smarter than that.

Who wants to put up with the bullshit we put candidates through these days.

Condy Rice would get my support.  But she's not going to go through that shitstorm.  

Right now, the country does not deserve her.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about Barry Goldwater and the republican party. No republican I know of, opposed the Civil Rights Bill that we were talking about, as "overreach" while supporting segregation and/or Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> It was certainly never the platform of the Party.
> 
> 
> If he was not talking about Goldwater, then who was he talking about, and why? Perhaps he should have explained if he was completely changing the subject and why.
> 
> 
> If he was.
Click to expand...

Barry Goldwater voted against Civil Rights and campaigned in the south for States Rights.
That is why he won those states against Democrat LBJ
Goldwater took S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana. 
Up til then, they were solid Democratic


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 8 blacks elected by Republicans in a hundred years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
Click to expand...


That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.

Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
"land of the free"?

As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.


It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.

Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.

That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.


----------



## Meister

Wanna back up this, or is it just BS...Biff_Poindexter ?

With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount --* at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support "Trump.*...in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and *he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote*."


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
Click to expand...


I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
Click to expand...

They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.


----------



## IM2

Meister said:


> Wanna back up this, or is it just BS...Biff_Poindexter ?
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount --* at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support "Trump.*...in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and *he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote*."



trump has not won over any blacks. I am not going to argue with you about this as you are white and I happen to be black. 70 percent of all blacks do not support trump in any manner and this year, he will be lucky to get 10 percent of the black vote. That's how things are in the real world. In fact free land controlled by the alt right media, the numbers of blacks supporting trump in any manner is made up.


----------



## Meister

IM2 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna back up this, or is it just BS...Biff_Poindexter ?
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount --* at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support "Trump.*...in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and *he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trump has not won over any blacks. I am not going to argue with you about this as you are white and I happen to be black. 70 percent of all blacks do not support trump in any manner and this year, he will be lucky to get 10 percent of the black vote. That's how things are in the real world. In fact free land controlled by the alt right media, the numbers of blacks supporting trump in any manner is made up.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm saying....it's not true and Trump never said that.  I'm calling out Biff for his lie.
I know you don't have the character to call out Biff for the lie.


----------



## IM2

Meister said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna back up this, or is it just BS...Biff_Poindexter ?
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount --* at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support "Trump.*...in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and *he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trump has not won over any blacks. I am not going to argue with you about this as you are white and I happen to be black. 70 percent of all blacks do not support trump in any manner and this year, he will be lucky to get 10 percent of the black vote. That's how things are in the real world. In fact free land controlled by the alt right media, the numbers of blacks supporting trump in any manner is made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I'm saying....it's not true and Trump never said that.  I'm calling out Biff for his lie.
> I know you don't have the character to call out Biff for the lie.
Click to expand...


I don't call him out because I know Biff is being sarcastic. He plays you guys every time.


----------



## Meister

IM2 said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meister said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wanna back up this, or is it just BS...Biff_Poindexter ?
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount --* at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support "Trump.*...in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and *he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote*."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trump has not won over any blacks. I am not going to argue with you about this as you are white and I happen to be black. 70 percent of all blacks do not support trump in any manner and this year, he will be lucky to get 10 percent of the black vote. That's how things are in the real world. In fact free land controlled by the alt right media, the numbers of blacks supporting trump in any manner is made up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I'm saying....it's not true and Trump never said that.  I'm calling out Biff for his lie.
> I know you don't have the character to call out Biff for the lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't call him out because I know Biff is being sarcastic. He plays you guys every time.
Click to expand...

Make up any excuse for your lack of character you want.  I really don't give a shit, everybody knows it anyways.
But, if Biff wants to start an OP he ought to try and use actual facts to argue and not the ones he makes up.
Something you would never understand, IM2.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> 
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They opposed gay rights
> 
> Still do
Click to expand...

Not all of them.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For blacks it was 100 years of broken promises. We were leaving before  the mid 60's but when the republican party went full racist, that just increased the leaving. Wealthy whites in all political parties that have existed during American history have played the blame the black person for your problems game on poor or middle class whites since America was a British colony.
> 
> 
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.
Click to expand...

Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.

So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Actually Blacks OPPOSE Gay rights, gay marriage and gay adoption. And remind me which party they have voted for since 1967?


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted.


You mean _Democrats_ voted.

Can't pin that on Republicans.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
Click to expand...

That's the view of white liberals, actually.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an old article, but the writer did an exceptional job of explaining the psychology behind the term "Democrat Plantation", as well as the psychosis of FAR right black conservatives who use the term.
> 
> A childhood  friend of mine who is a professor at SDSU emailed this to me, and believes this to be 21st century code language that is being used to shame ill informed, gullible black citizens into committing to a right leaning political party, in spite of the fact that NEITHER party represents the best interests of black voters.
> 
> Opinion | Blacks, Conservatives and Plantations
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's exactly what it is. And even worse, they find these dumb blacks to go out and talk this shit. Idiots like Larry Elders, Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, Candice Owns, Shelby Teele, Star Parker, etc.
Click to expand...

Why are they idiots?  Because you don't agree with them?

Why do liberals hate blacks who dare disagree with what liberals insist they should believe?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Lastamender said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They opposed gay rights
> 
> Still do
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nobody is perfect. But show me in their platform where it says that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> “Marriage is between one man and one woman”
Click to expand...




 

Y'all had a fit when Prejean said exactly what Obama said -- and you were silent when he said it.

Double standard much?


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean like how the democrats this cycle dumped all the black candidates quickly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't dump anybody. People voted. You white republicans need to quit this bullshit. I am 59 years old and I'm telling you why blacks left the party according to blacks who are no longer here who did the leaving. Katsteve is older than I am and he's telling you the same thing. And most certainly we can see what the party stands for today simply by coming in places like this and talking directly to republicans. So this blacks being told what to do by white liberals who keep us on a democratic plantation is an insult that's even worse than calling us the n word. And posting comments from sorry ass black uncle  toms and sellouts is even more insulting because we know that the ONLY reason you even support them is because they are dumb ass naïve idiots thinking they are working to bring the races together by appeasing your racist asses but in reality  they are working to help you implement your anti black agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and yet MORE republicans voted for the Civil rights act then democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys really need to quit this shit.
> 
> The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the Voting Rights Advancement Act of 2019, by a vote of 228-186  on Friday. *Just one Republican — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — voted for it,* while 186 Republicans voted no.
> 
> House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look RETARD we were talking about the Civil rights act, god you are pathetic. As for the bill you cited it had major flaws if you had bothered to read it. Anything created by democrats is usually designed to benefit democrats and disenfranchise republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look retard, you were trying to give todays republicans credit for being a party of racial equality based on their vote on civil rights in the 1960's. That bill was not created to benefit democrats and it had few if any flaws. I have read the bill hundreds of times idiot, and I certainly won't be listening to some racist white assholes opinion of it.
Click to expand...

Remember, kids, Republicans can't take credit for anything in the past -- but they damn sure have to accept the blame for the past.


----------



## daveman

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
Click to expand...


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
Click to expand...


There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
Click to expand...

LOL so now you try to redefine pro life. You are just an idiot. Remind us what the dems did to the dem that ran for president before Obama. Ohh and Zel Miller?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
Click to expand...


Again, nothing to support your horseshit claims.

Everyone but you knows what pro-life stands for so quit being so obtuse....yeah...look it up.

And Thomas Sowell when he is dead will still have a higher I.Q. than you could ever hope to claim.

Harvard Magna Cum Laude
Columbia - Masters
University of Chicago -PhD

National Humanities Medal Recipient

Works at Standford as a Senior Fellow.

Please spare us your jealous rants about blacks who are better than you who have done much to show how much you don't know and how what you think you know is WRONG.


----------



## Dale Smith

IM2 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LuckyDuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> Donald Trump has shown that you definitely don't need to be an actual politician to do a good job, thus my thoughts are on two individuals (President and Vice-President):
> Conservative and known strong supporter of the Second Amendment for president:  Colion Noir (or Sheriff David Clarke).
> Conservative speaker for Vice-President:  Candace Owens.
> 
> 
> 
> trump has been a failure. Sheriff Clarke is mentally retarded and Candice Owens is dumber than he is..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Having read your fool fueled rants of vapid nothingness for a few years now? You seem to be as pissed today as you were when Barrypuppet was riding high. Are you one of those types that live to have a bug lodged up your ass and anger is actually fulfilling for you? Just askin'.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spoken fact. You can't  handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single thing that you have written that I "can't handle". I weigh, consider and reflect. All I see from you is unfettered anger and an unwillingness to let go of the past even though there are those like myself that see us all in the same fight and it's worse than you could even imagine as to what is being planned for all of us that are not in the .000001 percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not weigh or consider anything. You deny. This is not about the past idiot, it is all about right now. We are talking about continuing white racism. If white racism was a thing of the past, we would not be talking about it because it would not exist. So you can't be weighing or considering anything. Second, why people like you can be mad at what you claim is some kind of debt based monetary system but then act like we should not be angry because we get treated with no respect shows that you don't weigh or consider, but that you think we have no right to be angry and that we should just take it.
> 
> Whites give our theology a name, but you not believing in liberation theology shows that you have chosen to dismiss the experience blacks have had in America completely. What you believe is the same thing as white extremists. I generally have chosen to ignore your ignorance because what you believe is crazy. Your monetary system would not work and you really don't understand the nature of anything. And when you talk about being rooted in the past, your belief is some system based on a decision made during the depression is nothing but a belief based on the past and a lack of understanding of how our system operates based on conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

\

What is it that you claim I "deny"?  I don't have the power to keep you down and if I had the power to raise you up and not make you feel inferior? I would do it in a heartbeat because no man is better than another all things being equal. My best friend and someone that I consider closer than kin isn't a white man. He is black and a mountain of a man with a heart as big as he is but we are kindred souls. I would gladly lay down my life for him without hesitation...it would be just reflex. We don't see color, we see the world in the same way.

 Did you know that I lived in a condo complex that catered to singles? It was built right across from the old Dallas Cowboys practice facility before they moved to Valley Ranch in Irving, Texas during the Tom Landry era. A judge in Dallas ruled that it was discrimination for "singles only" communities to exclude and that since Plano and North Dallas didn't want subsidized housing projects built in their communities and wanted to keep blacks in places like Oak Cliff that they would subsidize housing in mostly white communities? That included where I lived. We had black families, mostly single black mothers with children getting subsidized housing in our condo community. These little children moved into a community that had no kind of accommodations for kids to have any kind of recreational activities? I saw these children bouncing a basketball or throwing a football in the parking lot. So, I built a basketball back board with anchors that I could easily hang up over MY parking space so these kids would have a place to play for a few hours a day after I got off work. I got notices from the "Association" telling me that my basketball goal hung over my own fucking  paid for parking space was a violation and that neighbors were complaining. I knew my neighbors and they were the ones whose cars were many feet away from my space and they even signed a petition to attest to the fact that my portable basketball goal was in no way infringing on their ability to park or endangered their vehicles but yet I was to be fined unless I refrained from putting up my plywood basketball  backboard and goal over my own fucking parking space that I paid for. Guess who the whiner was? An old black lady  that was a school teacher whose car was nowhere near where our little court was.........I spent my own money, I paid for the parking spot and I was a mentor to kids that didn't have any kind of recreational activities or a male role model...so how fucking DARE you accuse ME of being racist. You don't know me, you can't even presume to stand in judgement of me. I care about people regardless of the tint of their skin. I don't see color, I see people. You? If they have white skin then they must be the devil. I could really bust on you and how you have offended me but you wouldn't see anything else but how you  want to see it.

BTW, Liberation theology was brought about by the Jesuits that were complicit in the slave trade....bet you had no idea about that, one.....


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the view of white liberals, actually.
Click to expand...

I am calling bullshit on that one.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about Barry Goldwater and the republican party. No republican I know of, opposed the Civil Rights Bill that we were talking about, as "overreach" while supporting segregation and/or Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> It was certainly never the platform of the Party.
> 
> 
> If he was not talking about Goldwater, then who was he talking about, and why? Perhaps he should have explained if he was completely changing the subject and why.
> 
> 
> If he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barry Goldwater voted against Civil Rights and campaigned in the south for States Rights.
> That is why he won those states against Democrat LBJ
> Goldwater took S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
> Up til then, they were solid Democratic
Click to expand...





Yes, the pro-racist policies of the Dems, gave the dems a machine like lock on the South, and when they finally gave up on that, they lost that lock.

Putting the South into the possibility of play.


Goldwater's concerns about the bill's overreach, likely was appealing to some of those racists, who might have crossed party lines for that. 


But Goldwater was not pandering to them, the way the dems did, with actual racist policies, and the republicans certainly never did. 


The Southern Strategy, as you libs paint it, is a Big Lie.


Hell, IM2 sort of admitted it, when he pointed out that blacks started switching parties UNDER FDR, when the dems were still supporting Jim Crow.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Party of Lincoln has blocked every major civil rights protection for the last 50 years
> 
> 
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.
> 
> So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
Click to expand...

It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves. 

Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about Barry Goldwater and the republican party. No republican I know of, opposed the Civil Rights Bill that we were talking about, as "overreach" while supporting segregation and/or Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> It was certainly never the platform of the Party.
> 
> 
> If he was not talking about Goldwater, then who was he talking about, and why? Perhaps he should have explained if he was completely changing the subject and why.
> 
> 
> If he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barry Goldwater voted against Civil Rights and campaigned in the south for States Rights.
> That is why he won those states against Democrat LBJ
> Goldwater took S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
> Up til then, they were solid Democratic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the pro-racist policies of the Dems, gave the dems a machine like lock on the South, and when they finally gave up on that, they lost that lock.
> 
> Putting the South into the possibility of play.
> 
> 
> Goldwater's concerns about the bill's overreach, likely was appealing to some of those racists, who might have crossed party lines for that.
> 
> 
> But Goldwater was not pandering to them, the way the dems did, with actual racist policies, and the republicans certainly never did.
> 
> 
> The Southern Strategy, as you libs paint it, is a Big Lie.
> 
> 
> Hell, IM2 sort of admitted it, when he pointed out that blacks started switching parties UNDER FDR, when the dems were still supporting Jim Crow.
Click to expand...

Goldwater spouted the same slogans being shouted by Jim Crow racists. States Rights.........Namely, A state has a right to enforce second class citizenship.

The South Punished southern Democrat LBJ and voted Republican. 

The beginning of the Southern Strategy


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll is just a racist sack of lying shit. My grandparents were republicans, my parents were republicans when they were young. They all left the party because the party kept fucking blacks over. That is how they explained it to me. Republicans would promise blacks things and never keep their promises. Things like ending segregation. In classic white supremacist fashion, Correll cannot face the truth and has to manufacture blame elsewhere for I personal failure of the failure of the republican party.
> 
> It was a democrat that signed the emancipation proclamation of my generation. Yet these idiots want to post racist comments from him, while telling us how we should be republicans because of Lincoln, a man that believed blacks were inferior. These guys are so full of shit, they are surrounded all day by flies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
Click to expand...


Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.




> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?




Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country. 




> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.




No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal. 






> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.



Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement. 


It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.






> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.




It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination. 


IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
Click to expand...



"They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that. 


He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the government was not overreaching when it was making laws to segregate and provide whites with extra rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
Click to expand...

Try to follow the thread

The question was government overreach


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
Click to expand...


He's spot on.

The fact that you can't post more than two sentences isn't our issue.  The fact that you are to lazy to read more that two sentences isn't our issue either.

Stop deflecting.


----------



## rightwinger

Sun Devil 92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's spot on.
> 
> The fact that you can't post more than two sentences isn't our issue.  The fact that you are to lazy to read more that two sentences isn't our issue either.
> 
> Stop deflecting.
Click to expand...

The question being addressed was government overreach. 

Do you struggle with reading too?


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rightwinger said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's spot on.
> 
> The fact that you can't post more than two sentences isn't our issue.  The fact that you are to lazy to read more that two sentences isn't our issue either.
> 
> Stop deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question being addressed was government overreach.
> 
> Do you struggle with reading too?
Click to expand...


And he was spot on in his argument.

If you want to present more than two sentences to make yours...feel free. 

Otherwise, don't waste our time.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about Barry Goldwater and the republican party. No republican I know of, opposed the Civil Rights Bill that we were talking about, as "overreach" while supporting segregation and/or Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> It was certainly never the platform of the Party.
> 
> 
> If he was not talking about Goldwater, then who was he talking about, and why? Perhaps he should have explained if he was completely changing the subject and why.
> 
> 
> If he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barry Goldwater voted against Civil Rights and campaigned in the south for States Rights.
> That is why he won those states against Democrat LBJ
> Goldwater took S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
> Up til then, they were solid Democratic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the pro-racist policies of the Dems, gave the dems a machine like lock on the South, and when they finally gave up on that, they lost that lock.
> 
> Putting the South into the possibility of play.
> 
> 
> Goldwater's concerns about the bill's overreach, likely was appealing to some of those racists, who might have crossed party lines for that.
> 
> 
> But Goldwater was not pandering to them, the way the dems did, with actual racist policies, and the republicans certainly never did.
> 
> 
> The Southern Strategy, as you libs paint it, is a Big Lie.
> 
> 
> Hell, IM2 sort of admitted it, when he pointed out that blacks started switching parties UNDER FDR, when the dems were still supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater spouted the same slogans being shouted by Jim Crow racists. States Rights.........Namely, A state has a right to enforce second class citizenship.
> 
> The South Punished southern Democrat LBJ and voted Republican.
> 
> The beginning of the Southern Strategy
Click to expand...


States rights or states powers are fundamental to the constitution.  Always have been.  You on the left ignore that because you want to force your POV's on everyone and control their minds. 

The south used that power to oppress blacks.  Somehow trashing the constutuion was going to make everyone "not a bigot".  However many decades after the civil rights act, the south is still pretty racist.  A great many blacks are also racist. 

You failed.

What exactly did the south punish LBJ for ?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an
> example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
Click to expand...



Your racist dismissal of black republicans is just you being a racist asshole.

I supported Herman Cain in his presidential run, because I liked his contempt for the media and him being an outsider. 

He was the front runner toward the end of 2011. His race did not bother republican voters at all. 


YOu are the racist here, not us republicans. 


Cain was not the republican nominee, because the media dog piled him, with lies, and Cain was no Trump, to be able to survive that attack. IMO, this reflected poorly on the media, and to a lesser extent, the Religious Right voters, who were stupid enough to give any credibility to the press.


You are a race baiting asshole.


----------



## Correll

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL so now you try to redefine pro life. You are just an idiot. Remind us what the dems did to the dem that ran for president before Obama. Ohh and Zel Miller?
Click to expand...



Libs just say shit.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We were talking about Barry Goldwater and the republican party. No republican I know of, opposed the Civil Rights Bill that we were talking about, as "overreach" while supporting segregation and/or Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> It was certainly never the platform of the Party.
> 
> 
> If he was not talking about Goldwater, then who was he talking about, and why? Perhaps he should have explained if he was completely changing the subject and why.
> 
> 
> If he was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Barry Goldwater voted against Civil Rights and campaigned in the south for States Rights.
> That is why he won those states against Democrat LBJ
> Goldwater took S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana.
> Up til then, they were solid Democratic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the pro-racist policies of the Dems, gave the dems a machine like lock on the South, and when they finally gave up on that, they lost that lock.
> 
> Putting the South into the possibility of play.
> 
> 
> Goldwater's concerns about the bill's overreach, likely was appealing to some of those racists, who might have crossed party lines for that.
> 
> 
> But Goldwater was not pandering to them, the way the dems did, with actual racist policies, and the republicans certainly never did.
> 
> 
> The Southern Strategy, as you libs paint it, is a Big Lie.
> 
> 
> Hell, IM2 sort of admitted it, when he pointed out that blacks started switching parties UNDER FDR, when the dems were still supporting Jim Crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater spouted the same slogans being shouted by Jim Crow racists. States Rights.........Namely, A state has a right to enforce second class citizenship.
> 
> The South Punished southern Democrat LBJ and voted Republican.
> 
> The beginning of the Southern Strategy
Click to expand...



1. That is not the definition of States Rights. 

2. Except that Goldwater was not pandering to racists. His position was based on fear of government overreach. That is not what the liars who push the Southern Strategy Myth, say that the Southern Strategy was. 


3. You are a race baiting asshole.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me where Barry Goldwater said that, or admit that you are a filthy liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
Click to expand...



And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not. 


You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.


You are a dishonest assshole.


Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's spot on.
> 
> The fact that you can't post more than two sentences isn't our issue.  The fact that you are to lazy to read more that two sentences isn't our issue either.
> 
> Stop deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question being addressed was government overreach.
> 
> Do you struggle with reading too?
Click to expand...



Neither Barry Goldwater nor the Republican Party ever supported Jim Crow. You are being sloppy with language, in an attempt to imply otherwise, 

while planning to use your vagueness to weasel out of having to defend your smears, if called on them.


Like the dishonest coward you are, liberal.


But I repeat myself.


That you are being smug about it, is just a layer of asshole on top of that.


----------



## Correll

Sun Devil 92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's spot on.
> 
> The fact that you can't post more than two sentences isn't our issue.  The fact that you are to lazy to read more that two sentences isn't our issue either.
> 
> Stop deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The question being addressed was government overreach.
> 
> Do you struggle with reading too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he was spot on in his argument.
> 
> If you want to present more than two sentences to make yours...feel free.
> 
> Otherwise, don't waste our time.
Click to expand...



he is being vague on purpose, so that he can say stupid shit, and then weasel out of it, when we call him on it.


Libs are sub human scum.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
Click to expand...

Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act

Make of it what you want


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
Click to expand...



Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.


YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not. 


His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.


Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.


Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL so now you try to redefine pro life. You are just an idiot. Remind us what the dems did to the dem that ran for president before Obama. Ohh and Zel Miller?
Click to expand...


I have not redefined anything. Pro life means for life.  So all the people I mentioned are for life. Del Miller was not for life, he was anti abortion.


----------



## IM2

Dale Smith said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> trump has been a failure. Sheriff Clarke is mentally retarded and Candice Owens is dumber than he is..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Having read your fool fueled rants of vapid nothingness for a few years now? You seem to be as pissed today as you were when Barrypuppet was riding high. Are you one of those types that live to have a bug lodged up your ass and anger is actually fulfilling for you? Just askin'.........
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've spoken fact. You can't  handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single thing that you have written that I "can't handle". I weigh, consider and reflect. All I see from you is unfettered anger and an unwillingness to let go of the past even though there are those like myself that see us all in the same fight and it's worse than you could even imagine as to what is being planned for all of us that are not in the .000001 percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not weigh or consider anything. You deny. This is not about the past idiot, it is all about right now. We are talking about continuing white racism. If white racism was a thing of the past, we would not be talking about it because it would not exist. So you can't be weighing or considering anything. Second, why people like you can be mad at what you claim is some kind of debt based monetary system but then act like we should not be angry because we get treated with no respect shows that you don't weigh or consider, but that you think we have no right to be angry and that we should just take it.
> 
> Whites give our theology a name, but you not believing in liberation theology shows that you have chosen to dismiss the experience blacks have had in America completely. What you believe is the same thing as white extremists. I generally have chosen to ignore your ignorance because what you believe is crazy. Your monetary system would not work and you really don't understand the nature of anything. And when you talk about being rooted in the past, your belief is some system based on a decision made during the depression is nothing but a belief based on the past and a lack of understanding of how our system operates based on conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> What is it that you claim I "deny"?  I don't have the power to keep you down and if I had the power to raise you up and not make you feel inferior? I would do it in a heartbeat because no man is better than another all things being equal. My best friend and someone that I consider closer than kin isn't a white man. He is black and a mountain of a man with a heart as big as he is but we are kindred souls. I would gladly lay down my life for him without hesitation...it would be just reflex. We don't see color, we see the world in the same way.
> 
> Did you know that I lived in a condo complex that catered to singles? It was built right across from the old Dallas Cowboys practice facility before they moved to Valley Ranch in Irving, Texas during the Tom Landry era. A judge in Dallas ruled that it was discrimination for "singles only" communities to exclude and that since Plano and North Dallas didn't want subsidized housing projects built in their communities and wanted to keep blacks in places like Oak Cliff that they would subsidize housing in mostly white communities? That included where I lived. We had black families, mostly single black mothers with children getting subsidized housing in our condo community. These little children moved into a community that had no kind of accommodations for kids to have any kind of recreational activities? I saw these children bouncing a basketball or throwing a football in the parking lot. So, I built a basketball back board with anchors that I could easily hang up over MY parking space so these kids would have a place to play for a few hours a day after I got off work. I got notices from the "Association" telling me that my basketball goal hung over my own fucking  paid for parking space was a violation and that neighbors were complaining. I knew my neighbors and they were the ones whose cars were many feet away from my space and they even signed a petition to attest to the fact that my portable basketball goal was in no way infringing on their ability to park or endangered their vehicles but yet I was to be fined unless I refrained from putting up my plywood basketball  backboard and goal over my own fucking parking space that I paid for. Guess who the whiner was? An old black lady  that was a school teacher whose car was nowhere near where our little court was.........I spent my own money, I paid for the parking spot and I was a mentor to kids that didn't have any kind of recreational activities or a male role model...so how fucking DARE you accuse ME of being racist. You don't know me, you can't even presume to stand in judgement of me. I care about people regardless of the tint of their skin. I don't see color, I see people. You? If they have white skin then they must be the devil. I could really bust on you and how you have offended me but you wouldn't see anything else but how you  want to see it.
> 
> BTW, Liberation theology was brought about by the Jesuits that were complicit in the slave trade....bet you had no idea about that, one.....
Click to expand...


You don't know me either but you have made  the same racist assumptions as the other right wing extremists here. The Jesuits had nothing to do with what blacks teach. I know this because I am black, my father was a preacher and I do go to church.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
Click to expand...

Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
I merely corrected you on it


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL so now you try to redefine pro life. You are just an idiot. Remind us what the dems did to the dem that ran for president before Obama. Ohh and Zel Miller?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not redefined anything. Pro life means for life.  So all the people I mentioned are for life. Del Miller was not for life, he was anti abortion.
Click to expand...

LOL claiming someone against abortion is NOT pro life, how VERY FUCKING Moronic of you.


----------



## Dale Smith

IM2 said:


> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dale Smith said:
> 
> 
> 
> Having read your fool fueled rants of vapid nothingness for a few years now? You seem to be as pissed today as you were when Barrypuppet was riding high. Are you one of those types that live to have a bug lodged up your ass and anger is actually fulfilling for you? Just askin'.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've spoken fact. You can't  handle it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There hasn't been a single thing that you have written that I "can't handle". I weigh, consider and reflect. All I see from you is unfettered anger and an unwillingness to let go of the past even though there are those like myself that see us all in the same fight and it's worse than you could even imagine as to what is being planned for all of us that are not in the .000001 percent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do not weigh or consider anything. You deny. This is not about the past idiot, it is all about right now. We are talking about continuing white racism. If white racism was a thing of the past, we would not be talking about it because it would not exist. So you can't be weighing or considering anything. Second, why people like you can be mad at what you claim is some kind of debt based monetary system but then act like we should not be angry because we get treated with no respect shows that you don't weigh or consider, but that you think we have no right to be angry and that we should just take it.
> 
> Whites give our theology a name, but you not believing in liberation theology shows that you have chosen to dismiss the experience blacks have had in America completely. What you believe is the same thing as white extremists. I generally have chosen to ignore your ignorance because what you believe is crazy. Your monetary system would not work and you really don't understand the nature of anything. And when you talk about being rooted in the past, your belief is some system based on a decision made during the depression is nothing but a belief based on the past and a lack of understanding of how our system operates based on conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> \
> 
> What is it that you claim I "deny"?  I don't have the power to keep you down and if I had the power to raise you up and not make you feel inferior? I would do it in a heartbeat because no man is better than another all things being equal. My best friend and someone that I consider closer than kin isn't a white man. He is black and a mountain of a man with a heart as big as he is but we are kindred souls. I would gladly lay down my life for him without hesitation...it would be just reflex. We don't see color, we see the world in the same way.
> 
> Did you know that I lived in a condo complex that catered to singles? It was built right across from the old Dallas Cowboys practice facility before they moved to Valley Ranch in Irving, Texas during the Tom Landry era. A judge in Dallas ruled that it was discrimination for "singles only" communities to exclude and that since Plano and North Dallas didn't want subsidized housing projects built in their communities and wanted to keep blacks in places like Oak Cliff that they would subsidize housing in mostly white communities? That included where I lived. We had black families, mostly single black mothers with children getting subsidized housing in our condo community. These little children moved into a community that had no kind of accommodations for kids to have any kind of recreational activities? I saw these children bouncing a basketball or throwing a football in the parking lot. So, I built a basketball back board with anchors that I could easily hang up over MY parking space so these kids would have a place to play for a few hours a day after I got off work. I got notices from the "Association" telling me that my basketball goal hung over my own fucking  paid for parking space was a violation and that neighbors were complaining. I knew my neighbors and they were the ones whose cars were many feet away from my space and they even signed a petition to attest to the fact that my portable basketball goal was in no way infringing on their ability to park or endangered their vehicles but yet I was to be fined unless I refrained from putting up my plywood basketball  backboard and goal over my own fucking parking space that I paid for. Guess who the whiner was? An old black lady  that was a school teacher whose car was nowhere near where our little court was.........I spent my own money, I paid for the parking spot and I was a mentor to kids that didn't have any kind of recreational activities or a male role model...so how fucking DARE you accuse ME of being racist. You don't know me, you can't even presume to stand in judgement of me. I care about people regardless of the tint of their skin. I don't see color, I see people. You? If they have white skin then they must be the devil. I could really bust on you and how you have offended me but you wouldn't see anything else but how you  want to see it.
> 
> BTW, Liberation theology was brought about by the Jesuits that were complicit in the slave trade....bet you had no idea about that, one.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't know me either but you have made  the same racist assumptions as the other right wing extremists here. The Jesuits had nothing to do with what blacks teach. I know this because I am black, my father was a preacher and I do go to church.
Click to expand...


What racial assumptions would those be? That you have this massive chip on your shoulder and blame that you wish to lay at my feet? I care about people regardless of their skin tint. Am I more prone to help my black brothers and sisters than those of my own skin tint? Yeah, I am guilty if that is what you want to call "racism" but I don't do it out of "white guilt" but because I have been "there" if you get my drift.  If you only knew MY history and what my life story is, you would understand where I am coming from. I saw my father that was a peace officer (before they were known as police) stand up for two black teens that committed the unforgivable sin of wanting to buy a couple of hamburgers and were refused service while being catcalled by a bunch of racist POS teenagers that were sitting at the picnic table in front of this drive-in when I was seven years old. This was in 1970...not that long ago in the great big scheme of things and I remember it like it was yesterday.

My dad wasn't large in stature but he was a scrapper. If you wanted to fight him, you better be ready to kill him because he would never stop coming at ya. We went to a drive-in (which were big back in the day) and he faced and backed down these punks that were much bigger than he was and then he turned his attention to the lady (and I use the term loosely in her case) and ordered her to serve these patrons or he would make it his business to shut them down. When she sneered at him, he showed his badge and she couldn't have gotten any whiter if she had tried. My dad was my hero that stood up for those that had no voice and I have followed his example by standing up and being counted and I have had people stand up for me...again, you have to know MY story. I am on your side to the extent that I want everyone to be given a chance to prove their character and worth, I simply disagree with these divisive tactics being used. People are basically good, children are basically good because it is an inherent trait God gave us. The trait to have empathy, the traits of having the ability to love unconditionally and lift up those that need it and hope that the same is given in return should by the grace of God, go I. This constant pitting of using one thing or another to divide us makes us easier to conquer and never seeing the ones pulling the strings behind the scenes. You say liberation theology isn't a tried and true tactic of the Jesuits? History says otherwise. So, "Yes", I stand by my contention that liberation theology was a creation of the Jesuits and the Vatican. I challenge you to do a google search using "Jesuits, Liberation theology" and if you are honest with yourself and really seek the truth? You will have your eyes opened up to a whole new reality. 

We have got to come together as one voice or we have no chance at all. Sadly, we stood by and were silent about the abuse of policemen that hassled those for "driving while black" and civil forfeiture. I had a very good friend that had his wallet emptied after he cashed his paycheck (because he didn't trust banks) because the cop that stopped him was convinced the money was ill-gotten gains from drug dealing. He simply assumed that was the source of the money and it took him a month to get back even a portion of what was stolen from him. I "get it", trust me because now they have come for all of us because we allowed it to happen to those that were deemed as "different".


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
Click to expand...

The Hive Mind mentality is strong with you.  You don't even believe black conservatives are really black.  

You serve your white liberal masters well.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the view of white liberals, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am calling bullshit on that one.
Click to expand...

Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Such as...?
> 
> But it's interesting that you set the cutoff at 50 years.  Because if you'd gone back further, you'd have forced me to illustrate the Democratic Party's opposition to civil rights legislation since the founding of the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.
> 
> So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves.
> 
> Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.
Click to expand...

And the Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan as their terrorist arm to keep those former slaves in line.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the view of white liberals, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am calling bullshit on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.
Click to expand...




daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the view of white liberals, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am calling bullshit on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.
Click to expand...




daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the view of white liberals, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am calling bullshit on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.
Click to expand...




daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the view of white liberals, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am calling bullshit on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.
Click to expand...




daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> They are big on the 'Blacks are not smart enough to know what is good for them' forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the view of white liberals, actually.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am calling bullshit on that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.
Click to expand...

Yes it does.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.
> 
> So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves.
> 
> Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan as their terrorist arm to keep those former slaves in line.
Click to expand...


No actually whites did that. And they were enabled by supreme court opinions written by republican justices.

Blacks were supposed to have been given the right to vote by the fifteenth amendment.

The *Fifteenth Amendment* (*Amendment XV*) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.

Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

But alas, the constitution didn't matter to whites.

*Minor v. Happersett*, U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously in 1874 that the right of suffrage was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

In its decision the Supreme Court declared that the privileges and immunities of citizenship are not defined by the U.S. Constitution; thus, individual states’ enfranchisement of male citizens only was not necessarily a violation of the citizenship rights of women. This finding effectively put an end to attempts to win voting rights for women through court decree. Subsequent efforts in the woman suffrage movement in the United States focused on the revision of voting laws of individual states and on the ratification of a separate amendment to the Constitution.

Minor v. Happersett | law case

_*United States v. Reese*_, 92 U.S. 214 (1876), was a voting rights case in which the United States Supreme Court narrowly construed the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that suffrage for citizens can not be restricted due to race, color or the individual having previously been a slave.

This was the Supreme Court's first voting rights case under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Enforcement Act of 1870. A Kentucky electoral official had refused to register an African‐American's vote in a municipal election and was indicted under two sections of the 1871 act: section 1 required that administrative preliminaries to elections be conducted without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude; section 2 forbade wrongful refusal to register votes where a prerequisite step “required as foresaid” had been omitted.

The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not confer the right of suffrage, but it prohibited exclusion from voting on racial grounds. The justices invalidated the operative section 3 of the Enforcement Act since it did not repeat the amendment's words about race, color, and servitude. They ruled that the section exceeded the scope of the Fifteenth Amendment. *This ruling was the grounds for which the **Ku Klux Klan** was invented, as it provided white southerners with legal reassurance.*

United States v. Reese - Wikipedia

This was an 8-1 SCOTUS decision whereby the court decided that, "the 15th amendment did not guarantee the right to vote but it just prevented states from giving preference to one citizen over another on account of race or color." Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a *REPUBLICAN, *decided that the right to vote was decided by the states.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you, you will find that the republican party was just as much in opposition if you go further back.
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.
> 
> So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves.
> 
> Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan as their terrorist arm to keep those former slaves in line.
Click to expand...

KKK was a conservative organization
Still is


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did he ever claim Goldwater said that?
> 
> Goldwater did say let the states decide on their own Civil Rights
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have  to show you shit. There was no complaining by whites about government overreach when whites were making laws denying non whites or their civil rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had no problem getting the government to enforce Jim Crow or the legal system to deny the vote and equal access to the justice system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
Click to expand...


Wow...four sentences.....

He won't read the last two.


----------



## basquebromance

Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!


----------



## basquebromance

600K white men died to end slavery!


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My parents and grandparents  were Republicans back in the 50's and early 60's.
> 
> They gave the middle finger to that party when  Barry Goldwater opposed the civil rights act of 1964, which contributed to Johnson  winning  by a landslide, then he further insulted the intelligence of black voters by justifying his position, claiming that the civil rights act was a "government overreach".
> 
> They are all politicians and are dirty on both sides, and black citizens would be far better off just focusing more on local elections that have an immediate impact on their self interest.
> 
> There will never be another black POTUS in America again.
> 
> After what Obama endured, what sane black person would even want to be president of this country?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
Click to expand...


Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.

You, did not.

My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.


Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.

Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.

Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.

Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.

And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.

Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.

PERIOD.


----------



## IM2

basquebromance said:


> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!


Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.


----------



## IM2

Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
Click to expand...


THIS  "forum," in particular, certainly does. More so than any other that I have visited since internet forums like this were introduced.


----------



## rightwinger

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.



With all due respect, brother. I prefer that he voices his views as much as possible.

For older people like me, with grandchildren who will  soon be of voting age, and who have already been reached out to by colleges,
 and many young nieces and nephews who will  vote in this election year for the first time, provides me with first hand examples that I can show them and discuss with them some of the beliefs of people that could directly or indirectly affect their lives long after I'm gone and not here to protect them.

Just like my parents and grandparents did with me.

They wanted me to see and understand what those who were hostile towards their very presence and wanted to silence them in the 1950's and 60's were actually thinking. And it served to keep me a step ahead in the years that followed. Even now, my 87 year old mother, who now lives in my home, constantly reminds me that lack of vigilance will turn the clock back to the times that she, my father and grandparents fought to change.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.


Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated. 

But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> THIS  "forum," in particular, certainly does. More so than any other that I have visited since internet forums like this were introduced.
Click to expand...


I tried visiting townhall a few years ago and it was just as bad. I first started on one called Nation of Political Conservatives and ran into scum like tipsycatlover. Seems these conservative forums are full of these types.


----------



## rightwinger

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, brother. I prefer that he voices his views as much as possible.
> 
> For older people like me, with grandchildren who will  soon be of voting age, and who have already been reached out to by colleges,
> and many young nieces and nephews who will  vote in this election year for the first time, provides me with first hand examples that I can show them and discuss with them some of the beliefs of people that could directly or indirectly affect their lives long after I'm gone and not here to protect them.
> 
> Just like my parents and grandparents did with me.
> 
> They wanted me to see and understand what those who were hostile towards their very presence and wanted to silence them in the 1950's and 60's were actually thinking. And it served to keep me a step ahead.
Click to expand...

This board provides a prime example to those who claim our racist days are behind us and that we can now start to roll back civil rights 
protections. 

While people who voice racist thoughts in public will be fired or ostracized, this board allows them an opportunity to anonymously declare what they really believe.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With all due respect, brother. I prefer that he voices his views as much as possible.
> 
> For older people like me, with grandchildren who will  soon be of voting age, and who have already been reached out to by colleges,
> and many young nieces and nephews who will  vote in this election year for the first time, provides me with first hand examples that I can show them and discuss with them some of the beliefs of people that could directly or indirectly affect their lives long after I'm gone and not here to protect them.
> 
> Just like my parents and grandparents did with me.
> 
> They wanted me to see and understand what those who were hostile towards their very presence and wanted to silence them in the 1950's and 60's were actually thinking. And it served to keep me a step ahead.
Click to expand...


No doubt about it. I agree with you. He's not going to shut up. The more I tell him to shut up, the more he is going to run his mouth. But he needs to accept the disdain he will get from black folks as he does so.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL so now you try to redefine pro life. You are just an idiot. Remind us what the dems did to the dem that ran for president before Obama. Ohh and Zel Miller?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not redefined anything. Pro life means for life.  So all the people I mentioned are for life. Del Miller was not for life, he was anti abortion.
Click to expand...



You are not fooling anyone. NOT A SINGLE PERSON.


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
Click to expand...


Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> "They"? We were talking about Barry Goldwater. Barry Goldwater never did that.
> 
> 
> He was always a supporter of Civil Rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
Click to expand...



Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.


Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.


HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.


That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,


is you being a race baiting asshole.


----------



## katsteve2012

basquebromance said:


> 600K white men died to end slavery!



They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.

And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.

There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.

But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.


----------



## Correll

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks have been in our primaries.  They get "equal opportunity" to get the nomination.
> 
> There are blacks speaking at GOP conventions.
> 
> When was the last time you saw a pro-life woman speak at a DNC convention ?
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312087
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There has been no black nominee for president in the republican party. The "blacks" that speak at GOP conferences are sellouts used in order to validate the anti black agenda of the republican party.  There have been all kinds of pro life women speaking at DNC affairs. Anti war, anti death penalty and gun control women are pro life. And like clockwork we get an example of a sellout racist whites use in order to move forward with their agenda. Thomas Sowell is a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL so now you try to redefine pro life. You are just an idiot. Remind us what the dems did to the dem that ran for president before Obama. Ohh and Zel Miller?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have not redefined anything. Pro life means for life.  So all the people I mentioned are for life. Del Miller was not for life, he was anti abortion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL claiming someone against abortion is NOT pro life, how VERY FUCKING Moronic of you.
Click to expand...




It is pathetic the way he tries to fool people, fails, is called on his bullshit, and then pretends that he was not utterly made a fool of.


Who does he think he is fooling?


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
Click to expand...


And it led to Goldwater winning the states of S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana .....outside of his home state, the only states he won


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
Click to expand...

Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you assume that Barry Goldwater was not sincere in his concerns about government overreach?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
Click to expand...




You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".  


That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.


I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.


"Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.


IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
Click to expand...




You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.


You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> *IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US*.
Click to expand...


They already look at it as a very bad turning point for the US

It marked the rise of the American Conservative movement


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
Click to expand...


You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.

And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.

If they have even a shred of moral decency.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.
Click to expand...

What I said was quite specific. 

Today’s Republican Party is a rehash of the Know Nothings who exploited hatred of Irish immigrants and Catholics to rise to political power.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
Click to expand...


What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
Click to expand...


Goldwater laid the groundwork for what was to become the Republicans Southern Strategy

Look at what Goldwater just did!


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
Click to expand...

Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....

Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....

But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
Click to expand...


I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.

Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.

So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.


----------



## otto105

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....



Ah parody, I get it.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
Click to expand...

Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....

Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....

Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...

But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....


----------



## rightwinger

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
Click to expand...

Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons

That, they will spend money on


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
Click to expand...


So given that there are black conservatives out there, what does all this mean? Besides, it doesn't change the fact that liberals can be just as hateful as anyone else. Hate begets hate and no one is somehow magically or genetically immune from this. 

As for white nationalists, they don't speak for me and I have no control over what they say and neither am I responsible for what they say and do. However, at the core, I am a conservative with basic conservative values and views and I'll not change that because a few yahoos choose to pervert or conflate those values for their own purposes.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
Click to expand...


So what are the Democrats spending money on?


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
Click to expand...


Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try to follow the thread
> 
> The question was government overreach
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
Click to expand...


It's a endless cycle of horseshit.

I deal with others who are not as extreme


rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it led to Goldwater winning the states of S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana .....outside of his home state, the only states he won
Click to expand...


Two sentences....tsk tsk.

1. This was not the only factor in the election. 
2. Johnson was touting his costly "Great Society" program which appealed to more than just blacks.
3. Goldwater was severely undercut by the moderates in the party who, after they lost the primary, refused to campaign for him (and actively worked against him).  These were the moderates who thought America would swim in money forever.
4. Rarely mentioned is that Johnson also fought Goldwater on the issue of being an anti-communist.

Wow....learned something doing a little research.

Democratic primary included GEORGE WALLACE

Republican primary included Margaret Chase Smith.  Imagine those sexist bastards letting a woman in the program.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...
Click to expand...


Summary ==> Being the nanny state.

Wonder why people need all those things ?

Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster.  When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?

We can only hope.


----------



## rightwinger

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a endless cycle of horseshit.
> 
> I deal with others who are not as extreme
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it led to Goldwater winning the states of S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana .....outside of his home state, the only states he won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two sentences....tsk tsk.
> 
> 1. This was not the only factor in the election.
> 2. Johnson was touting his costly "Great Society" program which appealed to more than just blacks.
> 3. Goldwater was severely undercut by the moderates in the party who, after they lost the primary, refused to campaign for him (and actively worked against him).  These were the moderates who thought America would swim in money forever.
> 4. Rarely mentioned is that Johnson also fought Goldwater on the issue of being an anti-communist.
> 
> Wow....learned something doing a little research.
> 
> Democratic primary included GEORGE WALLACE
> 
> Republican primary included Margaret Chase Smith.  Imagine those sexist bastards letting a woman in the program.
Click to expand...

Has nothing to do with Goldwater sweeping the Jim Crow south. 
Over a southern Democrat no less.


----------



## rightwinger

Sun Devil 92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Summary ==> Being the nanny state.
> 
> Wonder why people need all those things ?
> 
> Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster.  When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?
> 
> We can only hope.
Click to expand...

Helping people who need help. 

Republican “plantations” are called prisons.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rightwinger said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a endless cycle of horseshit.
> 
> I deal with others who are not as extreme
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it led to Goldwater winning the states of S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana .....outside of his home state, the only states he won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two sentences....tsk tsk.
> 
> 1. This was not the only factor in the election.
> 2. Johnson was touting his costly "Great Society" program which appealed to more than just blacks.
> 3. Goldwater was severely undercut by the moderates in the party who, after they lost the primary, refused to campaign for him (and actively worked against him).  These were the moderates who thought America would swim in money forever.
> 4. Rarely mentioned is that Johnson also fought Goldwater on the issue of being an anti-communist.
> 
> Wow....learned something doing a little research.
> 
> Democratic primary included GEORGE WALLACE
> 
> Republican primary included Margaret Chase Smith.  Imagine those sexist bastards letting a woman in the program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with Goldwater sweeping the Jim Crow south.
> Over a southern Democrat no less.
Click to expand...


Really ?

Prove it.

The south has traditionally be a supporter of a strong, edgy, military.  Johnson painting Goldwater as being weak on communism helped in the south.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rightwinger said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Summary ==> Being the nanny state.
> 
> Wonder why people need all those things ?
> 
> Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster.  When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?
> 
> We can only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helping people who need help.
> 
> Republican “plantations” are called prisons.
Click to expand...


Kind like you help people after you run over them with your car.

I know you somehow live off the government, so I guess you need to sing it's praises.

All the while being critical of people who worship Trump.

That is so myopic and sad.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
Click to expand...


Abortions, same gender bathrooms


----------



## katsteve2012

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
Click to expand...


Maybe those with such sentiments believe that it is only "darker people" who want those things.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions, same gender bathrooms
Click to expand...

Again......you can't scream big government when you are trying to demonize the EFFECTIVENESS and SUCCESS of social security and Medicare to deflect from the lack of better conservative alternatives and the utter failure of so-called free market solutions....

Then in the same breath talk about government's need to tell women they can't have abortions.....tell you what, how about you just let the "free markets" decide what we should do about abortions....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

katsteve2012 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats take sadistic pleasure in telling blacks that conservatives hate them!
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't tell us shit. Conservatives tell us they hate us. Forums like this show us that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe those with such sentiments believe that it is only "darker people" who want those things.
Click to expand...

I believe it is even more sinister than that and therein lies my disdain for the conservative position.....they are much like Libertarians in that regard...

They have no problem with shit like Medicare and Social Security -- if they can guarantee that ONLY THEY BENEFIT from it...

Meanwhile, liberals not only want good healthcare for all -- they even want that same healthcare for those same conservatives who hate them - and their children too....


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions, same gender bathrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again......you can't scream big government when you are trying to demonize the EFFECTIVENESS and SUCCESS of social security and Medicare to deflect from the lack of better conservative alternatives and the utter failure of so-called free market solutions....
> 
> Then in the same breath talk about government's need to tell women they can't have abortions.....tell you what, how about you just let the "free markets" decide what we should do about abortions....
Click to expand...


1. Make stuff up much ?  But I'll bite.
2. The "Effectiveness and success of the social security and medicare are constantly debated.  Since nobody agrees on the standard of success....it will continue to happen.  So you can state why you think they are so good and I'll tell you why I think they SUCK.  And if you post anything about why I might say so, it will just confirm you are a hack.
3. I don't recall saying women can't have them.  I do resent being forced to pay for them.  Just so we are clear.  
4. Your last statement about the free market makes no sense.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions, same gender bathrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again......you can't scream big government when you are trying to demonize the EFFECTIVENESS and SUCCESS of social security and Medicare to deflect from the lack of better conservative alternatives and the utter failure of so-called free market solutions....
> 
> Then in the same breath talk about government's need to tell women they can't have abortions.....tell you what, how about you just let the "free markets" decide what we should do about abortions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Make stuff up much ?  But I'll bite.
> 2. The "Effectiveness and success of the social security and medicare are constantly debated.  Since nobody agrees on the standard of success....it will continue to happen.  So you can state why you think they are so good and I'll tell you why I think they SUCK.  And if you post anything about why I might say so, it will just confirm you are a hack.
> 3. I don't recall saying women can't have them.  I do resent being forced to pay for them.  Just so we are clear.
> 4. Your last statement about the free market makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Ok...now let me know who is forcing you to pay for abortions....give me SPECIFIC examples of this happening, not your feelings....

 


Also...let me know when you see "liberals" holding up signs like this for a "conservative policy" -- all I see are "conservatives" holding up signs demanding the very same "liberal" policies they have been taught to hate....tells me they don't hate them as much as they claim -- and it also tells me there is no better conservative policy or they will be demanding that instead..
 

Furthermore, can you explain to me why your cult leader is attacking his political opponent by claiming his opponent would cut that very same liberal policy that conservatives claim to hate??


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abortions, same gender bathrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again......you can't scream big government when you are trying to demonize the EFFECTIVENESS and SUCCESS of social security and Medicare to deflect from the lack of better conservative alternatives and the utter failure of so-called free market solutions....
> 
> Then in the same breath talk about government's need to tell women they can't have abortions.....tell you what, how about you just let the "free markets" decide what we should do about abortions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Make stuff up much ?  But I'll bite.
> 2. The "Effectiveness and success of the social security and medicare are constantly debated.  Since nobody agrees on the standard of success....it will continue to happen.  So you can state why you think they are so good and I'll tell you why I think they SUCK.  And if you post anything about why I might say so, it will just confirm you are a hack.
> 3. I don't recall saying women can't have them.  I do resent being forced to pay for them.  Just so we are clear.
> 4. Your last statement about the free market makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok...now let me know who is forcing you to pay for abortions....give me SPECIFIC examples of this happening, not your feelings....
> View attachment 312418
> 
> 
> Also...let me know when you see "liberals" holding up signs like this for a "conservative policy" -- all I see are "conservatives" holding up signs demanding the very same "liberal" policies they have been taught to hate....tells me they don't hate them as much as they claim -- and it also tells me there is no better conservative policy or they will be demanding that instead..
> View attachment 312417
> 
> Furthermore, can you explain to me why your cult leader is attacking his political opponent by claiming his opponent would cut that very same liberal policy that conservatives claim to hate??
Click to expand...


1. If my tax dollars are being used to fund them, then I am being forced to pay for them.  That is still my money because it is the governmet's and government is "We The People".  Happy to clear that one up for you.

2. I don't recall pointing at people holding up signs.  The person who made the sign was either stupid or playing a joke on someone ?  I am not sure people are taught to hate (where did you hear that ?).  My response was that the claim they are successful is not going to go unchallenged.  This sign proves nothing.  I stated how a conversation would go and you provide this ?  

Can you tell me your point ?

3. I don't belong to a cult, so I don't have a cult leader.  Trump's attack on Biden, like most of both of their attacks, is bullshit.  If you actually believe them, then maybe you should be looking at cult recovery.


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
Click to expand...

If you get your bearings turned around, and you watch a sunrise, and you believe the sun is coming up in the west, does that alter the reality that the sun came up in the east?

Hint:  No.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.
> 
> So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves.
> 
> Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan as their terrorist arm to keep those former slaves in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually whites did that. And they were enabled by supreme court opinions written by republican justices.
> 
> Blacks were supposed to have been given the right to vote by the fifteenth amendment.
> 
> The *Fifteenth Amendment* (*Amendment XV*) to the United States Constitution prohibits the federal government and each state from denying a citizen the right to vote based on that citizen's "race, color, or previous condition of servitude." It was ratified on February 3, 1870, as the third and last of the Reconstruction Amendments.
> 
> Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia
> 
> But alas, the constitution didn't matter to whites.
> 
> *Minor v. Happersett*, U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court ruled unanimously in 1874 that the right of suffrage was not protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
> 
> In its decision the Supreme Court declared that the privileges and immunities of citizenship are not defined by the U.S. Constitution; thus, individual states’ enfranchisement of male citizens only was not necessarily a violation of the citizenship rights of women. This finding effectively put an end to attempts to win voting rights for women through court decree. Subsequent efforts in the woman suffrage movement in the United States focused on the revision of voting laws of individual states and on the ratification of a separate amendment to the Constitution.
> 
> Minor v. Happersett | law case
> 
> _*United States v. Reese*_, 92 U.S. 214 (1876), was a voting rights case in which the United States Supreme Court narrowly construed the 15th Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that suffrage for citizens can not be restricted due to race, color or the individual having previously been a slave.
> 
> This was the Supreme Court's first voting rights case under the Fifteenth Amendment and the Enforcement Act of 1870. A Kentucky electoral official had refused to register an African‐American's vote in a municipal election and was indicted under two sections of the 1871 act: section 1 required that administrative preliminaries to elections be conducted without regard to race, color, or previous condition of servitude; section 2 forbade wrongful refusal to register votes where a prerequisite step “required as foresaid” had been omitted.
> 
> The Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment did not confer the right of suffrage, but it prohibited exclusion from voting on racial grounds. The justices invalidated the operative section 3 of the Enforcement Act since it did not repeat the amendment's words about race, color, and servitude. They ruled that the section exceeded the scope of the Fifteenth Amendment. *This ruling was the grounds for which the **Ku Klux Klan** was invented, as it provided white southerners with legal reassurance.*
> 
> United States v. Reese - Wikipedia
> 
> This was an 8-1 SCOTUS decision whereby the court decided that, "the 15th amendment did not guarantee the right to vote but it just prevented states from giving preference to one citizen over another on account of race or color." Chief Justice Morrison Waite, a *REPUBLICAN, *decided that the right to vote was decided by the states.
Click to expand...

None of that changes the simple fact the KKK was the terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

But you'd probably best not acknowledge that.  Democrats hate it when blacks criticize them.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...
Click to expand...


So what's the problem?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is absolutely false.  The Republican Party has supported civil rights for all since its establishment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.
> 
> So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves.
> 
> Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan as their terrorist arm to keep those former slaves in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KKK was a conservative organization
> Still is
Click to expand...

You sure do lie a lot.

Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented.  There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the   Democratic Party.  The official documents, titled _Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States_, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party.

One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876.  The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation….  Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”  An issue of _Harper’s Weekly_ that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him.  At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”​


----------



## daveman

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean _"Democrats don't tell us shit."_? YOU are a Democrat and you're telling other Democrats (and conservatives) that conservatives hate you.
> 
> 
> 
> Most conservatives I see on this message board claim to hate Democrats -- call them evil, traitors, enemies.....
> 
> Most of them I am sure are full of shit and just doing it as therapy for their own personal misery....
> 
> But what is therapeutic about hating people for wanting expanded social security, equal rights and overtime pay protections?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that no conservatives say they hate Democrats. No doubt some do. But IM2 said Democrats are not telling them (blacks) that conservatives hate them while he, a Democrat, is telling other Democrats and blacks that conservatives hate them.
> 
> Having said that, I have seen plenty of hate being spewed from both sides and neither side has a monopoly on it. I've seen some pretty vile things being directed at conservatives and have had some of this directed at me as well as experiencing black racism firsthand.
> 
> So what it all comes down to is: for all their proselytizing against racism, hate and prejudice, liberals and Democrats have proven themselves to be just as human as the rest of us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here is how it works -- since so many here seem to think "blacks" are a monolith who has to be told what they believe....
> 
> Blacks (most of them) see how policies affect them personally..and they vote based on the positive outcomes or negative outcomes of said policies -- very much like white folks, hispanics, asians, etc -- believe it or not....
> 
> Blacks also have the history of being FEDERALLY TARGETED by policies that NEGATIVELY AFFECTED them.....and there was one side who was consistently in FAVOR of those NEGATIVE policies -- Conservatives...be it when the Democrats were doing it thru Jim Crow or Republicans were doing it post Jim Crow...these black folks then raise their children and instill in their children this distrust of conservatives and their habit of dog whistling to their racist base -- most black folks are not too keen on teaming up with white nationalists...
> 
> But one thing most black folks can agree on is -- demonizing black voters and calling them slaves on a plantation for voting Democrat isn't helping the conservative cause....especially when standing next to those conservatives are the same white nationalists using the same racist talking points..instead......conservatives should talk about their policies and the outcomes they bring about -- but the reason why most conservatives don't really do that when they are courting black voters -- is in my opinion, a sign of disrespect....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
Click to expand...

Abortion clinics.

Democrats loves them some eugenics.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Abortions, same gender bathrooms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again......you can't scream big government when you are trying to demonize the EFFECTIVENESS and SUCCESS of social security and Medicare to deflect from the lack of better conservative alternatives and the utter failure of so-called free market solutions....
> 
> Then in the same breath talk about government's need to tell women they can't have abortions.....tell you what, how about you just let the "free markets" decide what we should do about abortions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Make stuff up much ?  But I'll bite.
> 2. The "Effectiveness and success of the social security and medicare are constantly debated.  Since nobody agrees on the standard of success....it will continue to happen.  So you can state why you think they are so good and I'll tell you why I think they SUCK.  And if you post anything about why I might say so, it will just confirm you are a hack.
> 3. I don't recall saying women can't have them.  I do resent being forced to pay for them.  Just so we are clear.
> 4. Your last statement about the free market makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok...now let me know who is forcing you to pay for abortions....give me SPECIFIC examples of this happening, not your feelings....
> View attachment 312418
> 
> 
> Also...let me know when you see "liberals" holding up signs like this for a "conservative policy" -- all I see are "conservatives" holding up signs demanding the very same "liberal" policies they have been taught to hate....tells me they don't hate them as much as they claim -- and it also tells me there is no better conservative policy or they will be demanding that instead..
> View attachment 312417
> 
> Furthermore, can you explain to me why your cult leader is attacking his political opponent by claiming his opponent would cut that very same liberal policy that conservatives claim to hate??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. If my tax dollars are being used to fund them, then I am being forced to pay for them.  That is still my money because it is the governmet's and government is "We The People".  Happy to clear that one up for you.
> 
> 2. I don't recall pointing at people holding up signs.  The person who made the sign was either stupid or playing a joke on someone ?  I am not sure people are taught to hate (where did you hear that ?).  My response was that the claim they are successful is not going to go unchallenged.  This sign proves nothing.  I stated how a conversation would go and you provide this ?
> 
> Can you tell me your point ?
> 
> 3. I don't belong to a cult, so I don't have a cult leader.  Trump's attack on Biden, like most of both of their attacks, is bullshit.  If you actually believe them, then maybe you should be looking at cult recovery.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to tell me how you are funding abortions......


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not false. Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove troops from southern states if they vote him into the presidency and that ended reconstruction. I can keep going with examples of republican opposition to civil rights before and after the 1965 Civil Rights Act was passed.
> 
> 
> 
> Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.
> 
> So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves.
> 
> Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan as their terrorist arm to keep those former slaves in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KKK was a conservative organization
> Still is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do lie a lot.
> 
> Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented.  There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the   Democratic Party.  The official documents, titled _Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States_, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party.
> 
> One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876.  The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation….  Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”  An issue of _Harper’s Weekly_ that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him.  At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”​
Click to expand...

Was being opposed to emancipation and in favor of slavery a conservative position or a liberal position??

You morons purposely avoid using those words because it blows that BS you spouting out of the water....


----------



## daveman

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Abortions, same gender bathrooms
> 
> 
> 
> Again......you can't scream big government when you are trying to demonize the EFFECTIVENESS and SUCCESS of social security and Medicare to deflect from the lack of better conservative alternatives and the utter failure of so-called free market solutions....
> 
> Then in the same breath talk about government's need to tell women they can't have abortions.....tell you what, how about you just let the "free markets" decide what we should do about abortions....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Make stuff up much ?  But I'll bite.
> 2. The "Effectiveness and success of the social security and medicare are constantly debated.  Since nobody agrees on the standard of success....it will continue to happen.  So you can state why you think they are so good and I'll tell you why I think they SUCK.  And if you post anything about why I might say so, it will just confirm you are a hack.
> 3. I don't recall saying women can't have them.  I do resent being forced to pay for them.  Just so we are clear.
> 4. Your last statement about the free market makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok...now let me know who is forcing you to pay for abortions....give me SPECIFIC examples of this happening, not your feelings....
> View attachment 312418
> 
> 
> Also...let me know when you see "liberals" holding up signs like this for a "conservative policy" -- all I see are "conservatives" holding up signs demanding the very same "liberal" policies they have been taught to hate....tells me they don't hate them as much as they claim -- and it also tells me there is no better conservative policy or they will be demanding that instead..
> View attachment 312417
> 
> Furthermore, can you explain to me why your cult leader is attacking his political opponent by claiming his opponent would cut that very same liberal policy that conservatives claim to hate??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. If my tax dollars are being used to fund them, then I am being forced to pay for them.  That is still my money because it is the governmet's and government is "We The People".  Happy to clear that one up for you.
> 
> 2. I don't recall pointing at people holding up signs.  The person who made the sign was either stupid or playing a joke on someone ?  I am not sure people are taught to hate (where did you hear that ?).  My response was that the claim they are successful is not going to go unchallenged.  This sign proves nothing.  I stated how a conversation would go and you provide this ?
> 
> Can you tell me your point ?
> 
> 3. I don't belong to a cult, so I don't have a cult leader.  Trump's attack on Biden, like most of both of their attacks, is bullshit.  If you actually believe them, then maybe you should be looking at cult recovery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to tell me how you are funding abortions......
Click to expand...

Allow me.

As best I can determine, taxpayers subsidize roughly 24% of all abortion costs in the U.S. with 6.6% borne by federal taxpayers and the remaining 17.4% picked up by state taxpayers. If we apply the 24% figure to the total number of abortions,  this is equivalent to taxpayers paying the full cost of 250,000 abortions a year, with about 70,000 financed by federal taxpayers  and 180,000 financed by state taxpayers​


----------



## daveman

Biff_Poindexter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reconstruction was about reconstructing the South, repairing all the war damage the North did.  Had nothing to do with civil rights.
> 
> So if that's the best you've got, you've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves.
> 
> Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan as their terrorist arm to keep those former slaves in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KKK was a conservative organization
> Still is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do lie a lot.
> 
> Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented.  There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the   Democratic Party.  The official documents, titled _Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States_, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party.
> 
> One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876.  The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation….  Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”  An issue of _Harper’s Weekly_ that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him.  At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was being opposed to emancipation and in favor of slavery a conservative position or a liberal position??
> 
> You morons purposely avoid using those words because it blows that BS you spouting out of the water....
Click to expand...

Horseshit.

Today's liberals want nothing to do with personal liberty.  You can tell because they want to erode personal liberties, primarily free speech and the Second Amendment.  This is established fact.

Democrats opposed emancipation and supported slavery.  This is established fact.

Republicans supported emancipation and condemned slavery.  This is established fact.

Neither conservatives nor Republicans oppose civil rights.  This is established fact.


----------



## rightwinger

Sun Devil 92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans don’t do anything in black communities except build prisons
> 
> That, they will spend money on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Summary ==> Being the nanny state.
> 
> Wonder why people need all those things ?
> 
> Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster.  When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?
> 
> We can only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helping people who need help.
> 
> Republican “plantations” are called prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind like you help people after you run over them with your car.
> 
> I know you somehow live off the government, so I guess you need to sing it's praises.
> 
> All the while being critical of people who worship Trump.
> 
> That is so myopic and sad.
Click to expand...


Republicans build plantations all over the country.......they call them prisons

They fill them with non violent offenders


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was also to enforce civil rights and protect former slaves.
> 
> Republicans sold them out and withdrew military forces in an agreement to win a disputed Presidential election.
> 
> 
> 
> And the Democrats created the Ku Klux Klan as their terrorist arm to keep those former slaves in line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> KKK was a conservative organization
> Still is
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You sure do lie a lot.
> 
> Nevertheless, this sordid history is still well documented.  There’s even a thirteen-volume set of Congressional investigations dating from 1872 detailing the Klan’s connection to the   Democratic Party.  The official documents, titled _Report of the Joint Select Committee to Inquire Into the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States_, irrefutably proves the KKK’s prominent role in the Democratic Party.
> 
> One of the most vivid examples of collusion between the KKK and Democratic Party was when Democrat Senator Wade Hampton ran for the governorship of South Carolina in 1876.  The Klan put into action a battle plan to help Democrats win, stating: “Every Democrat must feel honor bound to control the vote of at least one Negro by intimidation….  Democrats must go in as large numbers…and well-armed.”  An issue of _Harper’s Weekly_ that same year illustrated this mindset with a depiction of two white Democrats standing next to a black man while pointing a gun at him.  At the bottom of the depiction is a caption that reads: “Of Course He Wants To Vote The Democratic Ticket!”​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Was being opposed to emancipation and in favor of slavery a conservative position or a liberal position??
> 
> You morons purposely avoid using those words because it blows that BS you spouting out of the water....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Horseshit.
> 
> Today's liberals want nothing to do with personal liberty.  You can tell because they want to erode personal liberties, primarily free speech and the Second Amendment.  This is established fact.
> 
> Democrats opposed emancipation and supported slavery.  This is established fact.
> 
> Republicans supported emancipation and condemned slavery.  This is established fact.
> 
> Neither conservatives nor Republicans oppose civil rights.  This is established fact.
Click to expand...

Republicans ended the protections of Reconstruction and opened a path to Jim Crow

They are also the party that supports Confederate heritage today


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Summary ==> Being the nanny state.
> 
> Wonder why people need all those things ?
> 
> Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster.  When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?
> 
> We can only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helping people who need help.
> 
> Republican “plantations” are called prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind like you help people after you run over them with your car.
> 
> I know you somehow live off the government, so I guess you need to sing it's praises.
> 
> All the while being critical of people who worship Trump.
> 
> That is so myopic and sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans build plantations all over the country.......they call them prisons
> 
> They fill them with non violent offenders
Click to expand...

Today I learned there are no prisons in blue states, and liberals don't put non-violent offenders in prison.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
Click to expand...


How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
Click to expand...

But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
Click to expand...

Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
Click to expand...


Correll, your opinion of what blacks thought about Goldwater doesn't matter. Blacks left the party for the reasons I and Stave have stated. As we are black and were there to see it, you are simply talking out of your white racist ass. Whites do not speak for, or think for us. It is that paternalism which is a continuing part of a number of white americans that keeps racism alive. Things are as we said it was, not as you think it was.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?
Click to expand...


Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.

The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.
> 
> The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.
Click to expand...

Right now IN AFRICA Black people have slaves. during the 1700 and 1800 time frame Black people sold blacks to white men as slaves. And they kept their own slaves. You are to stupid and ignorant to believe.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary ==> Being the nanny state.
> 
> Wonder why people need all those things ?
> 
> Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster.  When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?
> 
> We can only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helping people who need help.
> 
> Republican “plantations” are called prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind like you help people after you run over them with your car.
> 
> I know you somehow live off the government, so I guess you need to sing it's praises.
> 
> All the while being critical of people who worship Trump.
> 
> That is so myopic and sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans build plantations all over the country.......they call them prisons
> 
> They fill them with non violent offenders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today I learned there are no prisons in blue states, and liberals don't put non-violent offenders in prison.
Click to expand...


You didn't learn that. What you should have learned is that the notion of a liberal plantation is a fucked up racist meme used by republicans that they need to stop using if they really want blacks to join their party.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.
> 
> The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now IN AFRICA Black people have slaves. during the 1700 and 1800 time frame Black people sold blacks to white men as slaves. And they kept their own slaves. You are to stupid and ignorant to believe.
Click to expand...


Right now there are slaves in Europe and  in America. I know exactly what happened in the 1700's, 1800's and before. Your statement is disingenuous. On top of that there are 100 years after slavery that whites like you are too scared to discuss and Blacks did not implement that system.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.
> 
> The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now IN AFRICA Black people have slaves. during the 1700 and 1800 time frame Black people sold blacks to white men as slaves. And they kept their own slaves. You are to stupid and ignorant to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now there are slaves in Europe and  in America. I know exactly what happened in the 1700's, 1800's and before. Your statement is disingenuous. On top of that there are 100 years after slavery that whites like you are too scared to discuss and Blacks did not implement that system.
Click to expand...

LOL you DEFEND blacks who did the EXACT same thing, You are racist to the CORE.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> But of course black men that had and still have slaves are ok right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since blacks bought their wives, children, grandchildren, parents, grandparents, other relatives or used the system to buy freedom for their friends, you really don't have anything to say.
> 
> The white racist disingenuous argument you make is dead. It's been dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right now IN AFRICA Black people have slaves. during the 1700 and 1800 time frame Black people sold blacks to white men as slaves. And they kept their own slaves. You are to stupid and ignorant to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right now there are slaves in Europe and  in America. I know exactly what happened in the 1700's, 1800's and before. Your statement is disingenuous. On top of that there are 100 years after slavery that whites like you are too scared to discuss and Blacks did not implement that system.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you DEFEND blacks who did the EXACT same thing, You are racist to the CORE.
Click to expand...


I'm not defending blacks who did  the same thing because they didn't.

The Schomburg Center for the Research of Black Culture has excellent information about the African slave trade that provides a stark contrast between what happened and what some use as an excuse to discount the experiences of blacks in America. The web site is named, _“The Abolition of the Slave Trade-African Resistance.” _From the introduction, information contained in this collection debunks the race pimped tales presented by some in America today.

_*“Africans started to fight the transatlantic slave trade as soon as it began. Their struggles were multifaceted and covered four continents over four centuries. Still, they have often been underestimated, overlooked, or forgotten. African resistance was reported in European sources only when it concerned attacks on slave ships and company barracoons, but acts of resistance also took place far from the coast and thus escaped the slavers’ attention. To discover them, oral history, archaeology, and autobiographies and biographies of African victims of the slave trade have to be probed. Taken together, these various sources offer a detailed image of the varied strategies Africans used to defend themselves from and mount attacks against the slave trade.*_


_*The Africans’ resistance continued in the Americas. They ran away, established maroon communities, used sabotage, conspired, and rose against those who held them in captivity. Freed people petitioned the authorities, led information campaigns, and worked actively to abolish the slave trade and slavery.*_


_*In Europe, black abolitionists launched or participated in civic movements to end the deportation and enslavement of Africans. They too delivered speeches, provided information, wrote newspaper articles and books.*_


_*Using violent as well as nonviolent means, Africans in Africa, the Americas, and Europe were constantly involved in the fight against the slave trade and slavery.”*_

The tale of Africa’s role in the slave trade as told by a segment of white society is incomplete and disingenuous. This has been done on purpose. It was not so simple as blacks capturing each other and selling them to whites. Europeans did not just waltz into Africa and overwhelm a bunch of backward, naked, dumb savages. They were in a fight for 400 years. Quite a number of Europeans entered Africa and Africa ended up being their final resting place.

_*“Some leaders actively worked against the transatlantic slave trade. One of the most famous was Abdel Kader Kane, the Muslim leader of the Futa Toro region in northern Senegal. Kane had succeeded in peopling his kingdom by retaking by force his people who had been kidnapped and by forbidding slave caravans from passing through his territory. After the French took three children from Futa, Kane sent a letter to the governor:*_


_*We are warning you that all those who will come to our land to trade [in slaves] will be killed and massacred if you do not send our children back. Would not somebody who was very hungry abstain from eating if he had to eat something cooked with his blood? We absolutely do not want you to buy Muslims under any circumstances. I repeat that if your intention is to always buy Muslims you should stay home and not come to our country anymore. Because all those who will come can be assured that they will lose their life.”*_

We are told stories about the shackles and chains, but we are not told the complete story of why they were needed. It is just “you sold your own into balls and chains.” But the story is just not that simple.

_*“As the slave trade expanded, resistance to it grew as well, and the need for shackles, guns, ropes, chains, iron balls, and whips tells an eloquent story of continuous and violent struggle from the hinterland to the high seas. As one slave trader remarked:*_


_*For the security and safekeeping of the slaves on board or on shore in the African barracoons, chains, leg irons, handcuffs, and strong houses are used. I would remark that this also is one of the forcible necessities resorted to for the preservation of the order, and as recourse against the dangerous consequences of this traffic.”*_


_*“Wherever possible, such as in Saint-Louis and Gorée (Senegal), James (Gambia), and Bance (Sierra Leone), the Europeans' barracoons were located on islands, which made escapes and attacks more difficult. In some areas, as soon as local people approached the boats, the crew is ordered to take up arms, the cannons are aimed, and the fuses are lighted . . . One must, without any hesitation, shoot at them and not spare them. The loss of the vessel and the life of the crew are at stake.”*_


_*“The heavily fortified forts and barracoons attest to the Europeans' distrust and apprehension. They had to protect themselves, as Jean-Baptiste Durand of the Compagnie du Sénégal explained, from the foreign vessels and from the Negroes living in the country."*_


_*“These precautions notwithstanding, in the eighteenth century, Fort Saint-Joseph on the Senegal River was attacked and all commerce was interrupted for six years. Several conspiracies and actual revolts by captives erupted on Gorée Island and resulted in the death of the governor and several soldiers. In addition, the crews of quite a few slave ships were killed on the River Gambia; in Sierra Leone, people sacked the captives' quarters of the infamous trader John Ormond. Similar incidents occurred in other parts of the African coast. Written records document how Africans on shore attacked more than a hundred ships.*_


_*Some Western slavers maintained occult centers in their barracoons, staffed by men they paid to work on the captives, sometimes with medicinal plants. The objective was to kill any spirit of rebellion, to tame the detainees, and make them accept their fate. The existence of these centers shows the extent of the precautions taken by slavers to prevent rebellions on land and during the Middle Passage: shackles and guns controlled the body, while the spirit was broken.*_


*But revolts on slave ships, although extremely difficult to organize and conduct, were numerous. About 420 revolts have been documented in slavers' papers, and they do not represent the totality. It is estimated that 100,000 Africans died in uprisings on the coast or during the Middle Passage. The fear of revolts resulted in additional costs for the slavers: larger crews, heavy weapons, and barricades. About 18 percent of the costs of the Middle Passage were incurred due to measures to thwart uprisings, and the captives who rose up saved, according to estimates, one million Africans from deportation by driving up the slavers' expenses.”*


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
Click to expand...


So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?

The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rightwinger said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what are the Democrats spending money on?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, educational programs, jobs training ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Summary ==> Being the nanny state.
> 
> Wonder why people need all those things ?
> 
> Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster.  When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?
> 
> We can only hope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helping people who need help.
> 
> Republican “plantations” are called prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind like you help people after you run over them with your car.
> 
> I know you somehow live off the government, so I guess you need to sing it's praises.
> 
> All the while being critical of people who worship Trump.
> 
> That is so myopic and sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans build plantations all over the country.......they call them prisons
> 
> They fill them with non violent offenders
Click to expand...


Well, that's why you stay with two sentences....

Because you only have 20 total in you playbook.

You seem to want to avoid overusing them.

Left Wing states don't build prisons ?  Really ?

Maybe that is why Alcatrez is a landmark ?


----------



## IM2

It's funny to watch these republicans lash out on frustration because blacks refuse to join their party despite all the tall tales they keep trying to tell about democrats. Ethos is having butthole triplets trying to stop blacks from supporting Biden. It's not that we are big fans of Biden, but we must get trump the fuck out of the white house.


----------



## NoNukes

daveman said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you get your bearings turned around, and you watch a sunrise, and you believe the sun is coming up in the west, does that alter the reality that the sun came up in the east?
> 
> Hint:  No.
Click to expand...

You do not have a reply so you come up with something idiotic that you think sounds intelligent. Typical Daveman


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?
> 
> The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.
Click to expand...

It means it was unnecessary like many wars.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> It's funny to watch these republicans lash out on frustration because blacks refuse to join their party despite all the tall tales they keep trying to tell about democrats. Ethos is having butthole triplets trying to stop blacks from supporting Biden. It's not that we are big fans of Biden, but we must get trump the fuck out of the white house.


Republicans made a choice and it wasn’t the minority vote.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?
> 
> The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means it was unnecessary like many wars.
Click to expand...


Of course it was unnecessary. But the fact remains that thousands fought and died to prevent the spread of slavery and to maintain the Union.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did I state that I didn't think he was sincere about his concerns?
> 
> It appears that you "assumed" what I think.
> 
> Obviously he was more concerned with "government overreach" than he was the rights of people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
Click to expand...



Except it wasn't, as I've shown. And like the rest, the whole lie of the Southern Strategy, is all just libs spewing shit from their face anuses.


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?
> 
> The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means it was unnecessary like many wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was unnecessary. But the fact remains that thousands fought and died to prevent the spread of slavery and to maintain the Union.
Click to expand...

The thing is the south panicked and overplayed a weak hand. Lincoln did not have the political power to end slavery. Best he could have done is stop the spread to new states. 

Instead of a gradual loss of slavery and compensation, the south lost them all in four years.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it wasn't, as I've shown. And like the rest, the whole lie of the Southern Strategy, is all just libs spewing shit from their face anuses.
Click to expand...

Southern Strategy worked. 
The South is still voting Republican


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat
Click to expand...




With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis  of dem control of the South, was broken.

This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation. 


Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> *IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They already look at it as a very bad turning point for the US
> 
> It marked the rise of the American Conservative movement
Click to expand...



Depends on the historians. I'm sure plenty of them, share your vision of the future, of an America that is a racist, violence torn Third World hellhole One Party State, and those historians I'm sure consider the rise of American Conservatives, to be a problem for their agenda.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis  of dem control of the South, was broken.
> 
> This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation.
> 
> 
> Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?
Click to expand...


Show your math


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If he was sincere in his stated concern about government overreach, then he was not insulting the intelligence of blacks , when he made that statement.
> 
> 
> It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if it was not only a lie, but a stupid lie.
> 
> 
> If his concern was sincere, and his stated reason was the truth, then his opposition to that particular bill was not opposition to the idea of civil rights but how it was being done in that bill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
Click to expand...




And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible, 


because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.


It is how you are dividing America.


Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.


BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.



Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.


But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes. 



You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was quite specific.
> 
> Today’s Republican Party is a rehash of the Know Nothings who exploited hatred of Irish immigrants and Catholics to rise to political power.
Click to expand...



If that was true, you would not spend so much time lying. If that was true, you would admit that Barry Goldwater was not opposed to civil rights, but just HOW that particular bill went about getting there.



You lie, because you know that you have to lie, to get people to vote for the agenda you want, that you know is bad for them.


----------



## Correll

Sun Devil 92 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Goldwater's position on it. YOur statement implies that he did those things, when you know he did not.
> 
> 
> You are trying to be misleading, while giving yourself cover, by using vague pro-nouns.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest assshole.
> 
> 
> Goldwater never supported Jim Crow and neither did the Republican Party. You are a lying asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a endless cycle of horseshit.
> 
> I deal with others who are not as extreme
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it led to Goldwater winning the states of S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana .....outside of his home state, the only states he won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two sentences....tsk tsk.
> 
> 1. This was not the only factor in the election.
> 2. Johnson was touting his costly "Great Society" program which appealed to more than just blacks.
> 3. Goldwater was severely undercut by the moderates in the party who, after they lost the primary, refused to campaign for him (and actively worked against him).  These were the moderates who thought America would swim in money forever.
> 4. Rarely mentioned is that Johnson also fought Goldwater on the issue of being an anti-communist.
> 
> Wow....learned something doing a little research.
> 
> Democratic primary included GEORGE WALLACE
> 
> Republican primary included Margaret Chase Smith.  Imagine those sexist bastards letting a woman in the program.
Click to expand...



Jesus, that's interesting. A women elected to the House, in 1940!


Margaret Chase Smith - Wikipedia



Whoa!


"During the administration of President John F. Kennedy, Smith argued that the United States should use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union.[14] This led Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to call Smith "the devil in disguise of a woman" whose position exceeded "all records of savagery."[14] Smith later replied, "Mr. Khrushchev isn't really mad at me. I am not that important. He is angry because American officials have grown more firm since my speech." "


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a endless cycle of horseshit.
> 
> I deal with others who are not as extreme
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it led to Goldwater winning the states of S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana .....outside of his home state, the only states he won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two sentences....tsk tsk.
> 
> 1. This was not the only factor in the election.
> 2. Johnson was touting his costly "Great Society" program which appealed to more than just blacks.
> 3. Goldwater was severely undercut by the moderates in the party who, after they lost the primary, refused to campaign for him (and actively worked against him).  These were the moderates who thought America would swim in money forever.
> 4. Rarely mentioned is that Johnson also fought Goldwater on the issue of being an anti-communist.
> 
> Wow....learned something doing a little research.
> 
> Democratic primary included GEORGE WALLACE
> 
> Republican primary included Margaret Chase Smith.  Imagine those sexist bastards letting a woman in the program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with Goldwater sweeping the Jim Crow south.
> Over a southern Democrat no less.
Click to expand...



How do you know that? Social Security wasn't an issue the South? Johnson dissing Wallace, wasn't an issue in the South?


----------



## Correll

Sun Devil 92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a endless cycle of horseshit.
> 
> I deal with others who are not as extreme
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it led to Goldwater winning the states of S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana .....outside of his home state, the only states he won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two sentences....tsk tsk.
> 
> 1. This was not the only factor in the election.
> 2. Johnson was touting his costly "Great Society" program which appealed to more than just blacks.
> 3. Goldwater was severely undercut by the moderates in the party who, after they lost the primary, refused to campaign for him (and actively worked against him).  These were the moderates who thought America would swim in money forever.
> 4. Rarely mentioned is that Johnson also fought Goldwater on the issue of being an anti-communist.
> 
> Wow....learned something doing a little research.
> 
> Democratic primary included GEORGE WALLACE
> 
> Republican primary included Margaret Chase Smith.  Imagine those sexist bastards letting a woman in the program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Has nothing to do with Goldwater sweeping the Jim Crow south.
> Over a southern Democrat no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really ?
> 
> Prove it.
> 
> The south has traditionally be a supporter of a strong, edgy, military.  Johnson painting Goldwater as being weak on communism helped in the south.
Click to expand...



It will be interesting to see which RW answers. The human, or the troll boy, who just does two sentence hit and run snark.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll, your opinion of what blacks thought about Goldwater doesn't matter. Blacks left the party for the reasons I and Stave have stated. As we are black and were there to see it, you are simply talking out of your white racist ass. Whites do not speak for, or think for us. It is that paternalism which is a continuing part of a number of white americans that keeps racism alive. Things are as we said it was, not as you think it was.
Click to expand...



It is not paternalism to point out that disagreeing on how to reach a goal, is not an insult to someone's intelligence.



That you need it to be, is because you lefties are terrified that conservative blacks might someday realize that they have more in common with conservative whites, then they do with you, and that you leftards, if you get your way, will ruin this nation.


And you fear having to defend your position and ideas based on their actual merits.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except it wasn't, as I've shown. And like the rest, the whole lie of the Southern Strategy, is all just libs spewing shit from their face anuses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southern Strategy worked.
> The South is still voting Republican
Click to expand...



If you really believed that, you would not have just made an unsupported empty assertion.


You  are doing NOTHING, but playing the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


A disagreement on how to reach a goal, is not opposition to reaching a goal.


ALL you claims of "Southern Strategy" is just you lefties lying like that.


Why do you want to divide America against itself like this?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was quite specific.
> 
> Today’s Republican Party is a rehash of the Know Nothings who exploited hatred of Irish immigrants and Catholics to rise to political power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was true, you would not spend so much time lying. If that was true, you would admit that Barry Goldwater was not opposed to civil rights, but just HOW that particular bill went about getting there.
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, because you know that you have to lie, to get people to vote for the agenda you want, that you know is bad for them.
Click to expand...

That’s the way it works

I AM NOT A RACIST
But I support the rights of states to enforce racism


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That thought is not even logical. Obviously he put staying within the confines of "government limits" over ensuring equal rights for ALL Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should any American have to "wait" for equal treatment in what is supposed be the so called
> "land of the free"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As tax paying citizens, black people were entitled to the same rights as every other citizen, and he apparantly believed that it was ACCEPTABLE for them to be selectively discriminated against at the whim of any state at any time, while he and his fellow oppressors "decided how to make the bill more palatable to the majority". That was nothing but the same ideology that the Confederacy supported prior to the start of the civil war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was a moral issue to black citizens during that era, and was  definately an INSULT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unlike you, I am old enough to recall the outrage over it, and black voters responded as they should have.....at the polls.
> 
> That is a no brainer, and it will be a well deserved footnote in Goldwaters legacy for eternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
Click to expand...


As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".

You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.

Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?

You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.

I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.

You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.

The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.

Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.

Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.

And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.

Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.

But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?
> 
> The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means it was unnecessary like many wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was unnecessary. But the fact remains that thousands fought and died to prevent the spread of slavery and to maintain the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is the south panicked and overplayed a weak hand. Lincoln did not have the political power to end slavery. Best he could have done is stop the spread to new states.
> 
> Instead of a gradual loss of slavery and compensation, the south lost them all in four years.
Click to expand...


True enough. I just don't think we should so easily dismiss those deaths.


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?
> 
> The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means it was unnecessary like many wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was unnecessary. But the fact remains that thousands fought and died to prevent the spread of slavery and to maintain the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is the south panicked and overplayed a weak hand. Lincoln did not have the political power to end slavery. Best he could have done is stop the spread to new states.
> 
> Instead of a gradual loss of slavery and compensation, the south lost them all in four years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True enough. I just don't think we should so easily dismiss those deaths.
Click to expand...

Other than they were unnecessary


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?
> 
> The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.
> 
> 
> 
> It means it was unnecessary like many wars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it was unnecessary. But the fact remains that thousands fought and died to prevent the spread of slavery and to maintain the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thing is the south panicked and overplayed a weak hand. Lincoln did not have the political power to end slavery. Best he could have done is stop the spread to new states.
> 
> Instead of a gradual loss of slavery and compensation, the south lost them all in four years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> True enough. I just don't think we should so easily dismiss those deaths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other than they were unnecessary
Click to expand...


In that case, so were the deaths in WWII.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Correll said:


> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Goldwater voted AGAINST the Civil Rights Act
> 
> Make of it what you want
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's a endless cycle of horseshit.
> 
> I deal with others who are not as extreme
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, you really need to shut your fucking white mouth up trying to tell blacks who saw why blacks left the republican party anything. If things were as you say, Goldwaters sincere racism was an insult to the humanity of black people. And that's just the way it is. It's not debatable and your opinion on the matter is irrelevant. Sometimes it's good for whites like yourself to know when to be seen and not heard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Goldwater claimed he was not racist but was merely standing up for conservative “principles”. States have the right to set their own rules on how their citizens are treated.
> 
> But this was 1964. I don’t see how anyone could maintain those “principles” as they saw the state turn firehoses on peaceful protestors, use attack dogs, imprison people who only wanted to vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater sang the same song these conservatives sing today. He was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And it led to Goldwater winning the states of S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana .....outside of his home state, the only states he won
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two sentences....tsk tsk.
> 
> 1. This was not the only factor in the election.
> 2. Johnson was touting his costly "Great Society" program which appealed to more than just blacks.
> 3. Goldwater was severely undercut by the moderates in the party who, after they lost the primary, refused to campaign for him (and actively worked against him).  These were the moderates who thought America would swim in money forever.
> 4. Rarely mentioned is that Johnson also fought Goldwater on the issue of being an anti-communist.
> 
> Wow....learned something doing a little research.
> 
> Democratic primary included GEORGE WALLACE
> 
> Republican primary included Margaret Chase Smith.  Imagine those sexist bastards letting a woman in the program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Jesus, that's interesting. A women elected to the House, in 1940!
> 
> 
> Margaret Chase Smith - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa!
> 
> 
> "During the administration of President John F. Kennedy, Smith argued that the United States should use nuclear weapons against the Soviet Union.[14] This led Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev to call Smith "the devil in disguise of a woman" whose position exceeded "all records of savagery."[14] Smith later replied, "Mr. Khrushchev isn't really mad at me. I am not that important. He is angry because American officials have grown more firm since my speech." "
Click to expand...


A republican woman no less.

She must have been a brainless, sell-out, pol-whore, zombie (at least according to the left).

Learn something new every day.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was quite specific.
> 
> Today’s Republican Party is a rehash of the Know Nothings who exploited hatred of Irish immigrants and Catholics to rise to political power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was true, you would not spend so much time lying. If that was true, you would admit that Barry Goldwater was not opposed to civil rights, but just HOW that particular bill went about getting there.
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, because you know that you have to lie, to get people to vote for the agenda you want, that you know is bad for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the way it works
> 
> I AM NOT A RACIST
> But I support the rights of states to enforce racism
Click to expand...


3 SENTENCES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AMAZING !


----------



## RetiredGySgt

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
Click to expand...

Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

RetiredGySgt said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
Click to expand...

The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Biff_Poindexter said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....
Click to expand...

HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.


----------



## rightwinger

Sun Devil 92 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was quite specific.
> 
> Today’s Republican Party is a rehash of the Know Nothings who exploited hatred of Irish immigrants and Catholics to rise to political power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was true, you would not spend so much time lying. If that was true, you would admit that Barry Goldwater was not opposed to civil rights, but just HOW that particular bill went about getting there.
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, because you know that you have to lie, to get people to vote for the agenda you want, that you know is bad for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the way it works
> 
> I AM NOT A RACIST
> But I support the rights of states to enforce racism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 3 SENTENCES !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> AMAZING !
Click to expand...

I reserve two sentences for the crap you post


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
Click to expand...

Not in the south and not in the north


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos

RetiredGySgt said:


> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.



Add the correct context.

Even if you are correct here, which I doubt, it does not change the fact that the *mid/late-60's saw the GOP turn against the Black Community ---after realizing the party could not loose negros from the grip of, Dem claws, which MLKSr. helped the Kennedy fam plunge into the Black Community*.

Therefore from mid-1960s thru mid-2010's, yes, those 50yrs we have mainly seen disdain from our White GOP when it comes to negro citizens. Fortunately, President Trump is not a politician. So he uplifts negros unlike any White anti-Liberal President since LBJ ---who was borne from 1940s-50s Dems that hated negros.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
Click to expand...

The fact you think black voters started to vote more for democrats than republicans was because of goldwater is the dumb shit I am referring to....

Fact of the matter is -- there is a reason why you dic suckers fixate on democrat/republican instead of liberal/conservative....and that is because conservatives have been AGAINST EVERY EMANCIPATION EFFORT OF EVERY HISTORICALLY OPPRESSED MINORITY GROUP -- be it women, blacks, gays, etc.....

Now is Barry Goldwater celebrated and praised by liberals or conservatives?? Is his opposition to the Civil Rights Act something that is constantly parroted and defended by liberals or conservatives?


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So does this mean those 600,000 deaths are meaningless? Does it mean that the nearly 300,000 who died on the Union side died for nothing?
> 
> The war should never have come to pass. But since the South pushed the issue, the North had no choice but to fight them. So to dismiss the Union deaths because other countries abolished slavery without bloodshed is, quite frankly, insulting to those who died and their families.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It means it was unnecessary like many wars.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## IM2

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add the correct context.
> 
> Even if you are correct here, which I doubt, it does not change the fact that the *mid/late-60's saw the GOP turn against the Black Community ---after realizing the party could not loose negros from the grip of, Dem claws, which MLKSr. helped the Kennedy fam plunge into the Black Community*.
> 
> Therefore from mid-1960s thru mid-2010's, yes, those 50yrs we have mainly seen disdain from our White GOP when it comes to negro citizens. Fortunately, President Trump is not a politician. So he uplifts negros unlike any White anti-Liberal President since LBJ ---who was borne from 1940s-50s Dems that hated negros.
Click to expand...

trump hasn't done that.


----------



## IM2

Thousands fought to save the union. Nothing else.

I am not going to give whites credit for fixing a problem they created. Slavery was unnecessary and to think that you can tell us how we should be grateful because whites died in a war is foolish. You need to thank the native americans that agreed to let whites stay here in the beginning.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in the south and not in the north
Click to expand...

The facts are simply MORE percentage of republicans voted FOR civil rights then democrats by percent. And if we are gonna whine about who voted in the south against it, remind me how many democrats which controlled the South VOTED for it?


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in the south and not in the north
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are simply MORE percentage of republicans voted FOR civil rights then democrats by percent. And if we are gonna whine about who voted in the south against it, remind me how many democrats which controlled the South VOTED for it?
Click to expand...


The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the *Voting* *Rights* Advancement Act of 2019, by a *vote* of 228-186  on Friday. Just *one* *Republican* — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — *voted* for it, while 186 *Republicans* *voted* no.

House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote

We know where the republican party stands today on civil rights.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> 
> 
> The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in the south and not in the north
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are simply MORE percentage of republicans voted FOR civil rights then democrats by percent. And if we are gonna whine about who voted in the south against it, remind me how many democrats which controlled the South VOTED for it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the *Voting* *Rights* Advancement Act of 2019, by a *vote* of 228-186  on Friday. Just *one* *Republican* — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — *voted* for it, while 186 *Republicans* *voted* no.
> 
> House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote
> 
> We know where the republican party stands today on civil rights.
Click to expand...

Again RETARD we are talking about the Civil RIGHTS ACT of 1964. You don't get to change the discussion.


----------



## Natural Citizen

IM2 said:


> The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the *Voting* *Rights* Advancement Act of 2019, by a *vote* of 228-186  on Friday. Just *one* *Republican* — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — *voted* for it, while 186 *Republicans* *voted* no.
> 
> House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote
> 
> We know where the republican party stands today on civil rights.




What exactly is stopping black folks from registering to vote and then going to vote?

Personally, I think it's overrated. If voting made a darned bit of difference I think it'd be illegal. 

But what's stopping them?


----------



## DOTR

Why do we need a black Republican President? Have we run out of whites?


----------



## Faun

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

..... born in 50 years.


----------



## IM2

Natural Citizen said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The House of Representatives passed H.R. 4, the *Voting* *Rights* Advancement Act of 2019, by a *vote* of 228-186  on Friday. Just *one* *Republican* — Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) — *voted* for it, while 186 *Republicans* *voted* no.
> 
> House passes Voting Rights bill with just one Republican vote
> 
> We know where the republican party stands today on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What exactly is stopping black folks from registering to vote and then going to vote?
> 
> Personally, I think it's overrated. If voting made a darned bit of difference I think it'd be illegal.
> 
> But what's stopping them?
Click to expand...


Why do whites like you ask such stupid questions?


----------



## Faun

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not in the south and not in the north
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facts are simply MORE percentage of republicans voted FOR civil rights then democrats by percent. And if we are gonna whine about who voted in the south against it, remind me how many democrats which controlled the South VOTED for it?
Click to expand...

This shit again...? 

The divide was north vs. south, not Republican vs. Democrat...






And when broken down by north versus south, Democrats voted for in greater percentages:

*Dem/North (95%)
GOP/North (85%)

Dem/South (9%)
GOP/South (0%)*

So it's not that the vote was divided over party lines, it wasn't...

*Dem: 64%
GOP: 80%*

It's that the vote was divided by region:

*Aye*

North: 353 (90%)
South: 9 (7%)

*Nay*

North: 38 (10%)
South: 115 (93%)

There were just so few Republicans in the racist conservative south.


----------



## Natural Citizen

IM2 said:


> Why do whites like you ask such stupid questions?



I think it's a rather fair question.


----------



## IM2

DOTR said:


> Why do we need a black Republican President? Have we run out of whites?


Why do we need more white presidents? Look at how fucked up our country is because of some of them.


----------



## IM2

Natural Citizen said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do whites like you ask such stupid questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a rather fair question.
Click to expand...

It's a dumb question that shows you have zero knowledge of history.


----------



## Natural Citizen

IM2 said:


> It's a dumb question that shows you have zero knowledge of history.



So you're not going to answer my question, then?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia



> Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.[11] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and staunch segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely





> Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by United States Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor





> When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage





> After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[18]
> 
> On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[19]


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#cite_note-19



> The Senate version:[21]
> 
> 
> Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
> Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)
> The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]
> 
> 
> Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
> Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)



Breakdown by region.



> The original House version:
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%) (four Representatives from Texas, two from Tennessee and Claude Pepper of Florida voted in favor)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
> The Senate version:
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)



so 87 democratic representatives vote NO only 10 Republican from the South. while 9 Northern democrats and 24 republicans from other states voted no

ONLY 7 representatives from the South voted yes .in the House

In the Senate 21 democrats voted NO and 6 republicans

Yet we are to believe blacks are so STUPID that this was what caused them to switch parties.


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos

IM2 said:


> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add the correct context.
> 
> Even if you are correct here, which I doubt, it does not change the fact that the *mid/late-60's saw the GOP turn against the Black Community ---after realizing the party could not loose negros from the grip of, Dem claws, which MLKSr. helped the Kennedy fam plunge into the Black Community*.
> 
> Therefore from mid-1960s thru mid-2010's, yes, those 50yrs we have mainly seen disdain from our White GOP when it comes to negro citizens. Fortunately, President Trump is not a politician. So he uplifts negros unlike any White anti-Liberal President since LBJ ---who was borne from 1940s-50s Dems that hated negros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trump hasn't done that.
Click to expand...


Stop hallucinating in here.  8 In 10 Black Americans View Trump As ‘A Racist,’ Poll Finds


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Thousands fought to save the union. Nothing else.
> 
> I am not going to give whites credit for fixing a problem they created. Slavery was unnecessary and to think that you can tell us how we should be grateful because whites died in a war is foolish. You need to thank the native americans that agreed to let whites stay here in the beginning.



So then you lump all whites in with those that fought to keep and spread slavery. That's like saying all whites, including those who fought against it, are guilty of Nazism.

If a white person dying in the fight to end slavery is not enough for you, nothing ever will be.


----------



## IM2

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> HISTORICAL FACT RETARD,Higher percentage of Republicans voted for Civil Rights act then democrats, it is an HISTORICAL FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Add the correct context.
> 
> Even if you are correct here, which I doubt, it does not change the fact that the *mid/late-60's saw the GOP turn against the Black Community ---after realizing the party could not loose negros from the grip of, Dem claws, which MLKSr. helped the Kennedy fam plunge into the Black Community*.
> 
> Therefore from mid-1960s thru mid-2010's, yes, those 50yrs we have mainly seen disdain from our White GOP when it comes to negro citizens. Fortunately, President Trump is not a politician. So he uplifts negros unlike any White anti-Liberal President since LBJ ---who was borne from 1940s-50s Dems that hated negros.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> trump hasn't done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Stop hallucinating in here.  8 In 10 Black Americans View Trump As ‘A Racist,’ Poll Finds
Click to expand...


The truth is what it is. trump is a racist. A sexist. A homophobe and a xenophobe.


----------



## IM2

Natural Citizen said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a dumb question that shows you have zero knowledge of history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you're not going to answer my question, then?
Click to expand...


I don't have to. Go back and study history and you will understand why that vote is important.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.[11] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and staunch segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by United States Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[18]
> 
> On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[19]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate version:[21]
> 
> 
> Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
> Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)
> The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]
> 
> 
> Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
> Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Breakdown by region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%) (four Representatives from Texas, two from Tennessee and Claude Pepper of Florida voted in favor)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
> The Senate version:
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so 87 democratic representatives vote NO only 10 Republican from the South. while 9 Northern democrats and 24 republicans from other states voted no
> 
> ONLY 7 representatives from the South voted yes .in the House
> 
> In the Senate 21 democrats voted NO and 6 republicans
> 
> Yet we are to believe blacks are so STUPID that this was what caused them to switch parties.
Click to expand...


*YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD BY BLACKS HERE WHY BLACKS LEFT THE REPUBLICAN PARTY. SO SHUT THE FUCK UP.*


----------



## Natural Citizen

IM2 said:


> I don't have to. Go back and study history and you will understand why that vote is important.



I didn't ask you why black votes are or aren't important.

I asked what's stopping black folk from registering and voting.


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos

IM2 said:


> The truth is what it is. trump is a racist. A sexist. A homophobe and a xenophobe.



Yes, exactly like how you cannot dispute it:  8 In 10 Black Americans View Trump As ‘A Racist,’ Poll Finds


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Natural Citizen said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Go back and study history and you will understand why that vote is important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you why black votes are or aren't important.
> 
> I asked what's stopping black folk from registering and voting.
Click to expand...

The same thing that had them change parties, they are just to damn IGNORANT to figure it out. They need a white liberal to hold their hand and show them the way.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Natural Citizen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to. Go back and study history and you will understand why that vote is important.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't ask you why black votes are or aren't important.
> 
> I asked what's stopping black folk from registering and voting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The same thing that had them change parties, they are just to damn IGNORANT to figure it out. They need a white liberal to hold their hand and show them the way.
Click to expand...


Since I am black and know that's not the case, I'll chalk your commentary up as another ignorant crackerism. If the law says blacks can't vote, that stops blacks from registering and voting. The fact that every republican but one voted against our right to vote shows where the republican party is today on civil rights.


----------



## IM2

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is what it is. trump is a racist. A sexist. A homophobe and a xenophobe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exactly like how you cannot dispute it:  8 In 10 Black Americans View Trump As ‘A Racist,’ Poll Finds
Click to expand...


I do not dispute the fact that trump is a racist. A white boy trying to tell me he's not is not going to change my mind.


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos

IM2 said:


> I do not dispute the fact that trump is a racist. A white boy trying to tell me he's not is not going to change my mind.



You did not dispute the facts, with facts, when I proved that Trump loves negro citizens ---including self-loathing Bootlickers like, you, who idolize Biden for wiping out an entire generation of Black males with his 1994 Crime Bill.


----------



## IM2

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dispute the fact that trump is a racist. A white boy trying to tell me he's not is not going to change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not dispute the facts, with facts, when I proved that Trump loves negro citizens ---including self-loathing Bootlickers like, you, who idolize Biden for wiping out an entire generation of Black males with his 1994 Crime Bill.
Click to expand...


HBCU'S only serve 11 percent of the blacks going to college. Meanwhile hes trying to erase AA on college campuses claiming that it discriminates against whites.

Corey Booker wrote advocated and got the first step act passed. Meanwhile trump has appointed over 150 racist right wing judges to courts.

Obama had the most diverse cabinet in history.

The black unemployment rate began dropping under Obama and it has dropped less under trump. Meanwhile black unemployment is still double that of whites, blacks still earn less than whites, blacks have one tenth the wealth of whites, and black poverty is more than double that of whites.

All 4 of these women were American citizens. 3 of the members of the squad were born in America and one immigrated here and is a naturalized citizen. So trump was not saying what you are trying to lie about.

Wow, trump called Sweden to release a black guy. I guess that means he's certainly not a racist.. LOL!

Elizabeth Warren was not delivering speeches with divisive rhetoric and advocating violence. Trump was.

You didn't present any facts son. trump is a racist. And trump supported the crime bill in 1994 as a democrat. So just shut your ass. You keep talking about the crime bill, but I've told you about that. So just shut up with the propaganda white boy, because there are a lot of adults out there today who were spared from gangs, jail or death thanks to provisions in that bill that provided money for community youth programs.

The crime bill died in 2004. Explain why mass incarceration continued after there was no law that would allow it to happen since that's what you are claiming.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy called the congressional leaders to the White House in late October 1963 to line up the necessary votes in the House for passage.[11] The bill was reported out of the Judiciary Committee in November 1963 and referred to the Rules Committee, whose chairman, Howard W. Smith, a Democrat and staunch segregationist from Virginia, indicated his intention to keep the bill bottled up indefinitely
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by United States Senator James O. Eastland, Democrat from Mississippi. Given Eastland's firm opposition, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After 54 days of filibuster, Senators Hubert Humphrey (D-MN), Mike Mansfield (D-MT), Everett Dirksen (R-IL), and Thomas Kuchel (R-CA), introduced a substitute bill that they hoped would attract enough Republican swing votes in addition to the core liberal Democrats behind the legislation to end the filibuster. The compromise bill was weaker than the House version in regard to government power to regulate the conduct of private business, but it was not so weak as to cause the House to reconsider the legislation.[18]
> 
> On the morning of June 10, 1964, Senator Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) completed a filibustering address that he had begun 14 hours and 13 minutes earlier opposing the legislation. Until then, the measure had occupied the Senate for 60 working days, including six Saturdays. A day earlier, Democratic Whip Hubert Humphrey of Minnesota, the bill's manager, concluded he had the 67 votes required at that time to end the debate and end the filibuster. With six wavering senators providing a four-vote victory margin, the final tally stood at 71 to 29. Never in history had the Senate been able to muster enough votes to cut off a filibuster on a civil rights bill. And only once in the 37 years since 1927 had it agreed to cloture for any measure.[19]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Senate version:[21]
> 
> 
> Democratic Party: 46–21   (69–31%)
> Republican Party: 27–6   (82–18%)
> The Senate version, voted on by the House:[21]
> 
> 
> Democratic Party: 153–91   (63–37%)
> Republican Party: 136–35   (80–20%)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Breakdown by region.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original House version:
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%) (four Representatives from Texas, two from Tennessee and Claude Pepper of Florida voted in favor)
> Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
> Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
> Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)
> The Senate version:
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats: 1–20   (5–95%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
> Southern Republicans: 0–1   (0–100%) (John Tower of Texas)
> Northern Democrats: 45–1   (98–2%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
> Northern Republicans: 27–5   (84–16%)
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so 87 democratic representatives vote NO only 10 Republican from the South. while 9 Northern democrats and 24 republicans from other states voted no
> 
> ONLY 7 representatives from the South voted yes .in the House
> 
> In the Senate 21 democrats voted NO and 6 republicans
> 
> Yet we are to believe blacks are so STUPID that this was what caused them to switch parties.
Click to expand...

Yes, you believe blacks are SO STUPID -- which is why you dic suckers continue to struggle with growing the black vote -- and it is also the reason why you love black folks like Candace Owens who put on minstrel shows for your entertainment....

Now.....can you tell me were there any of these prominent conservatives down south, putting their life on the line and marching next to MLK for Civil and Voting rights? Nope...


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> Thousands fought to save the union. Nothing else.
> 
> I am not going to give whites credit for fixing a problem they created. Slavery was unnecessary and to think that you can tell us how we should be grateful because whites died in a war is foolish. You need to thank the native americans that agreed to let whites stay here in the beginning.


Especially with the billions of dollars being made in the cotton industry, that they would go to war rather than share any of that wealth with those who created it.


----------



## katsteve2012

RetiredGySgt said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
Click to expand...


Seriously?

It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.

Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?

That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.

The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.

The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


> I am not going to give whites credit for fixing a problem they created.


How about for creating a problem they fixed?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

katsteve2012 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
Click to expand...

Now will be a good time to talk about Sammy Davis Jr......these conservatives are quick to point to Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of a black conservative...

But here is why I say that most black voters should care about policies, not the personalities of politicians...Sammy liked Nixon (much like Kanye and Trump) -- but Sammy thought having Nixon's ear would mean he can get him to implement policies he felt would benefit his community...but...he was duped...

*"How could the man who’d given financial support to the Black Panther Party, raised legal defense funds for Angela Davis, contributed to the United Negro College Fund, and supported Bobby Seale for mayor of Oakland be the same guy publicly endorsing Nixon? Davis saw his allegiance with Nixon as an opportunity, not a betrayal. By accepting invitations, he had the president’s ear and could advocate for issues that affected black people --- All of the anti-poverty programs that had been cut back — Head Start, manpower training centers — would need to be funded. They also talked about making Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday a national holiday. But when he talked to Ebony in 1976 for his cover story, he admitted he didn’t see any of those things being done. He later regretted supporting Nixon, who was not only a bigot, but so corrupt that Congress approved three articles of impeachment against him."*

When this black celebrity showed his support for a bigoted president, people were pissed


----------



## katsteve2012

Biff_Poindexter said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now will be a good time to talk about Sammy Davis Jr......these conservatives are quick to point to Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of a black conservative...
> 
> But here is why I say that most black voters should care about policies, not the personalities of politicians...Sammy liked Nixon (much like Kanye and Trump) -- but Sammy thought having Nixon's ear would mean he can get him to implement policies he felt would benefit his community...but...he was duped...
> 
> *"How could the man who’d given financial support to the Black Panther Party, raised legal defense funds for Angela Davis, contributed to the United Negro College Fund, and supported Bobby Seale for mayor of Oakland be the same guy publicly endorsing Nixon? Davis saw his allegiance with Nixon as an opportunity, not a betrayal. By accepting invitations, he had the president’s ear and could advocate for issues that affected black people --- All of the anti-poverty programs that had been cut back — Head Start, manpower training centers — would need to be funded. They also talked about making Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday a national holiday. But when he talked to Ebony in 1976 for his cover story, he admitted he didn’t see any of those things being done. He later regretted supporting Nixon, who was not only a bigot, but so corrupt that Congress approved three articles of impeachment against him."*
> 
> When this black celebrity showed his support for a bigoted president, people were pissed
Click to expand...


Great point. I forgot about Sammy endorsing Nixon. Did you know that James Brown did as well?

Black Supporters of President Under Fire


----------



## RetiredGySgt

katsteve2012 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
Click to expand...

Ya I agree you and your buddy IM2 are beyond stupid and if blacks used this as an excuse to join the democrats they were ignorant as hell.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

katsteve2012 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now will be a good time to talk about Sammy Davis Jr......these conservatives are quick to point to Sammy Davis Jr. as an example of a black conservative...
> 
> But here is why I say that most black voters should care about policies, not the personalities of politicians...Sammy liked Nixon (much like Kanye and Trump) -- but Sammy thought having Nixon's ear would mean he can get him to implement policies he felt would benefit his community...but...he was duped...
> 
> *"How could the man who’d given financial support to the Black Panther Party, raised legal defense funds for Angela Davis, contributed to the United Negro College Fund, and supported Bobby Seale for mayor of Oakland be the same guy publicly endorsing Nixon? Davis saw his allegiance with Nixon as an opportunity, not a betrayal. By accepting invitations, he had the president’s ear and could advocate for issues that affected black people --- All of the anti-poverty programs that had been cut back — Head Start, manpower training centers — would need to be funded. They also talked about making Dr. Martin Luther King’s birthday a national holiday. But when he talked to Ebony in 1976 for his cover story, he admitted he didn’t see any of those things being done. He later regretted supporting Nixon, who was not only a bigot, but so corrupt that Congress approved three articles of impeachment against him."*
> 
> When this black celebrity showed his support for a bigoted president, people were pissed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Great point. I forgot about Sammy endorsing Nixon. Did you know that James Brown did as well?
> 
> Black Supporters of President Under Fire
Click to expand...

Yes, James Brown was a big Nixon fan....Nixon put James and Sammy on some economic empowerment committee --- but it turned out just to be something to use for photo ops...


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos

IM2 said:


> Since I am black and know that's not the case, I'll chalk your commentary up as another ignorant crackerism. If the law says blacks can't vote, that stops blacks from registering and voting. The fact that every republican but one voted against our right to vote shows where the republican party is today on civil rights.



It does not stop you from a self-loathing, harlequin, who is referring to a group of people of which few or none of them are even alive anymore.

President Trump is trending at 30% of the negro vote ---_whereas in '08 the GOP nominee got 2% of the negro vote._

Wake up. Stop telling lies. Then, wise up.


----------



## Ethos Logos Pathos

IM2 said:


> Obama had the most diverse cabinet in history.
> 
> The black unemployment rate began dropping under Obama and it has dropped less under trump. Meanwhile black unemployment is still double that of whites, blacks still earn less than whites, blacks have one tenth the wealth of whites, and black poverty is more than double that of whites.
> 
> All 4 of these women were American citizens. 3 of the members of the squad were born in America and one immigrated here and is a naturalized citizen. So trump was not saying what you are trying to lie about.
> 
> Wow, trump called Sweden to release a black guy. I guess that means he's certainly not a racist.. LOL!
> 
> Elizabeth Warren was not delivering speeches with divisive rhetoric and advocating violence. Trump was.
> 
> You didn't present any facts son. trump is a racist. And trump supported the crime bill in 1994 as a democrat. So just shut your ass. You keep talking about the crime bill, but I've told you about that. So just shut up with the propaganda white boy, because there are a lot of adults out there today who were spared from gangs, jail or death thanks to provisions in that bill that provided money for community youth programs.
> 
> The crime bill died in 2004. Explain why mass incarceration continued after there was no law that would allow it to happen since that's what you are claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not dispute the fact that trump is a racist. A white boy trying to tell me he's not is not going to change my mind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You did not dispute the facts, with facts, when I proved that Trump loves negro citizens ---including self-loathing Bootlickers like, you, who idolize Biden for wiping out an entire generation of Black males with his 1994 Crime Bill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> HBCU'S only serve 11 percent of the blacks going to college. Meanwhile hes trying to erase AA on college campuses claiming that it discriminates against whites.
> 
> Corey Booker wrote advocated and got the first step act passed. Meanwhile trump has appointed over 150 racist right wing judges to courts.
> 
> Obama had the most diverse cabinet in history.
> 
> The black unemployment rate began dropping under Obama and it has dropped less under trump. Meanwhile black unemployment is still double that of whites, blacks still earn less than whites, blacks have one tenth the wealth of whites, and black poverty is more than double that of whites.
> 
> All 4 of these women were American citizens. 3 of the members of the squad were born in America and one immigrated here and is a naturalized citizen. So trump was not saying what you are trying to lie about.
> 
> Wow, trump called Sweden to release a black guy. I guess that means he's certainly not a racist.. LOL!
> 
> Elizabeth Warren was not delivering speeches with divisive rhetoric and advocating violence. Trump was.
> 
> You didn't present any facts son. trump is a racist. And trump supported the crime bill in 1994 as a democrat. So just shut your ass. You keep talking about the crime bill, but I've told you about that. So just shut up with the propaganda white boy, because there are a lot of adults out there today who were spared from gangs, jail or death thanks to provisions in that bill that provided money for community youth programs.
> 
> The crime bill died in 2004. Explain why mass incarceration continued after there was no law that would allow it to happen since that's what you are claiming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> "_You didn't present any facts_..."
> 
> No matter how many lies you tell here, today, the facts at my link will not change. Nope. There's nothing you can do to erase those acts of love President Trump shows negros from 2017-2020.
> 
> "_And trump supported the crime bill in 1994 as a democrat_"
> 
> Post the links to validate your dumb claim.  Period.
> 
> "_The crime bill died in 2004. Explain why mass incarceration continued after there was no law_"
> 
> You really are one dumbfucc, eh?  lol
> 
> It continued because the practices and cultures and mindsets did not change within, racism's cops, just because a physical left the books in 2004. The racist criminal justice will always find ways to continue subjugating negros.
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made racial discrimination, illegal. but that did not stop White racists from continuing to be racist did it?
> 
> The Homeland Security Acts made it illegal to be terrorist toward the USA, but surely, it has not stopped humans from terrorizing our homeland has it?
> 
> Go gain some critical thinking/critical analysis skills, fool.
Click to expand...


----------



## rightwinger

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I am black and know that's not the case, I'll chalk your commentary up as another ignorant crackerism. If the law says blacks can't vote, that stops blacks from registering and voting. The fact that every republican but one voted against our right to vote shows where the republican party is today on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not stop you from a self-loathing, harlequin, who is referring to a group of people of which few or none of them are even alive anymore.
> 
> President Trump is trending at 30% of the negro vote ---_whereas in '08 the GOP nominee got 2% of the negro vote._
> 
> Wake up. Stop telling lies. Then, wise up.
Click to expand...



Keep calling them “negroes”
That will show them how conservatives really feel about them.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not going to give whites credit for fixing a problem they created.
> 
> 
> 
> How about for creating a problem they fixed?
Click to expand...


No credit given for the creation of an unnecessary problem that did not have to be..


----------



## IM2

Ethos Logos Pathos said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I am black and know that's not the case, I'll chalk your commentary up as another ignorant crackerism. If the law says blacks can't vote, that stops blacks from registering and voting. The fact that every republican but one voted against our right to vote shows where the republican party is today on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not stop you from a self-loathing, harlequin, who is referring to a group of people of which few or none of them are even alive anymore.
> 
> President Trump is trending at 30% of the negro vote ---_whereas in '08 the GOP nominee got 2% of the negro vote._
> 
> Wake up. Stop telling lies. Then, wise up.
Click to expand...


trump has been trending at 10 percent throughout his entire presidency according to gallup. Rasmussen doesn't count. Shut up white boy.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I agree you and your buddy IM2 are beyond stupid and if blacks used this as an excuse to join the democrats they were ignorant as hell.
Click to expand...


We really could care less about what you think. This ain't 1860 and you party damn near unanimously voted against a voting rights measure last year. Blacks were republicans because Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation. After 100 years of apartheid, Johnson signed 2 measures that amounted to our second and third emancipation proclamations. Therefore we vote mostly democrat. Personally I am, not a member of either party. Because like Malcolm said:


----------



## rightwinger

The idea of a black Republican President is laughable


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I am black and know that's not the case, I'll chalk your commentary up as another ignorant crackerism. If the law says blacks can't vote, that stops blacks from registering and voting. The fact that every republican but one voted against our right to vote shows where the republican party is today on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not stop you from a self-loathing, harlequin, who is referring to a group of people of which few or none of them are even alive anymore.
> 
> President Trump is trending at 30% of the negro vote ---_whereas in '08 the GOP nominee got 2% of the negro vote._
> 
> Wake up. Stop telling lies. Then, wise up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> trump has been trending at 10 percent throughout his entire presidency according to gallup. Rasmussen doesn't count. Shut up white boy.
Click to expand...

Trump has both Diamond and Silk

That is about it


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable



At this point and time, it truly is.


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ethos Logos Pathos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since I am black and know that's not the case, I'll chalk your commentary up as another ignorant crackerism. If the law says blacks can't vote, that stops blacks from registering and voting. The fact that every republican but one voted against our right to vote shows where the republican party is today on civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It does not stop you from a self-loathing, harlequin, who is referring to a group of people of which few or none of them are even alive anymore.
> 
> President Trump is trending at 30% of the negro vote ---_whereas in '08 the GOP nominee got 2% of the negro vote._
> 
> Wake up. Stop telling lies. Then, wise up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> trump has been trending at 10 percent throughout his entire presidency according to gallup. Rasmussen doesn't count. Shut up white boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trump has both Diamond and Silk
> 
> That is about it
Click to expand...


And good old candy.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
Click to expand...


For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us. 

They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.


----------



## Grumblenuts

They Think You're Stupid


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
Click to expand...

I believe republicans can put a black person at the top of their ticket -- as long as he can run to the right of this guy.....


----------



## rightwinger

Grumblenuts said:


> They Think You're Stupid



9-9-9


----------



## Grumblenuts

9-9-9! You fight Democrats with Herman Cain!

Close second: Gus Fring


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Faun

rightwinger said:


> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable


It's an oxymoron.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> It's an oxymoron.
Click to expand...


Remember, no Republican said it; you did.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
Click to expand...


So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> It's an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, no Republican said it; you did.
Click to expand...

So?


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
Click to expand...

None ran this year.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ooof!


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran this year.
Click to expand...

None ran? Are you REALLY going to claim that?


----------



## Faun

RetiredGySgt said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran this year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran? Are you REALLY going to claim that?
Click to expand...

Oops, my mistake. Now that you said that, I looked it up and one did. Sorta.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ooof!

Best look again..


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> It's an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, no Republican said it; you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So?
Click to expand...


So, you're the one saying it, not Republicans.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran this year.
Click to expand...


Exactly.


----------



## Grumblenuts

This thread is now getting dumber by the minute..


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Faun said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran this year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran? Are you REALLY going to claim that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops, my mistake. Now that you said that, I looked it up and one did. Sorta.
Click to expand...

There were several blacks running. The DNC didn't want them.


----------



## Grumblenuts

The DNC now just wants old, male, and white. The GOP still just wants old, male, and orange.


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
Click to expand...

Maybe not the President in this cycle

But good chance at Vice President


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
Click to expand...

There is still slavery in northern Africa and throughout the Muslim world.  

But we seem to be obsessed with slavery in America, which ended 157 years ago.

I guess it's kinda hard to blame Whitey for slavery in northern Africa and the Muslim world, though, huh?


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sun Devil 92 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Summary ==> Being the nanny state.
> 
> Wonder why people need all those things ?
> 
> Well, it is clear that policies at the federal level on both sides are a disaster.  When are the states going to man up and take the responsibility they were designed to take ?
> 
> We can only hope.
> 
> 
> 
> Helping people who need help.
> 
> Republican “plantations” are called prisons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kind like you help people after you run over them with your car.
> 
> I know you somehow live off the government, so I guess you need to sing it's praises.
> 
> All the while being critical of people who worship Trump.
> 
> That is so myopic and sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans build plantations all over the country.......they call them prisons
> 
> They fill them with non violent offenders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today I learned there are no prisons in blue states, and liberals don't put non-violent offenders in prison.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You didn't learn that. What you should have learned is that the notion of a liberal plantation is a fucked up racist meme used by republicans that they need to stop using if they really want blacks to join their party.
Click to expand...

Blacks ARE joining the GOP, despite the howls of outrage from liberals.

But don't you dare ask yourself why.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still slavery in northern Africa and throughout the Muslim world.
> 
> But we seem to be obsessed with slavery in America, which ended 157 years ago.
> 
> I guess it's kinda hard to blame Whitey for slavery in northern Africa and the Muslim world, though, huh?
Click to expand...

Obsessed with slavery?

What about those who are still obsessed with the Confederacy?


----------



## daveman

NoNukes said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah?  So?  Doesn't alter the reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you get your bearings turned around, and you watch a sunrise, and you believe the sun is coming up in the west, does that alter the reality that the sun came up in the east?
> 
> Hint:  No.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do not have a reply so you come up with something idiotic that you think sounds intelligent. Typical Daveman
Click to expand...

It sounds idiotic because it's what you're using instead of logic.  

Don't like it?  Stop being an idiot.


----------



## The Purge

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


Well we do have Candace
...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> They Think You're Stupid



And we would have to have been stupid to vote for this clown.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> basquebromance said:
> 
> 
> 
> 600K white men died to end slavery!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still slavery in northern Africa and throughout the Muslim world.
> 
> But we seem to be obsessed with slavery in America, which ended 157 years ago.
> 
> I guess it's kinda hard to blame Whitey for slavery in northern Africa and the Muslim world, though, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obsessed with slavery?
> 
> What about those who are still obsessed with the Confederacy?
Click to expand...

Harmless.  But you just make sure you don't acknowledge non-white, non-American slave owners.  You'll burst into flames.


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran this year.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter who the black democratic nominee is for this year. The democrats produced a black president that served 2 terms. Name the black republican candidate.

rightwinger, do not slip like this because you know these assholes will jump on your mistake and conflate until the end of  time. There were 3 black candidates this cycle. Booker, Patrick and Harris.


----------



## IM2

The Purge said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
Click to expand...

I would not say that too loud to another black person.

You might get your feelings hurt.


----------



## JustAGuy1

IM2 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
Click to expand...


Cause you Black Folk are badasses?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
Click to expand...


Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this. 

As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.


----------



## The Purge

IM2 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMFAO......GOLLYWOG!


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
Click to expand...

Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
Just EIGHT in the last 150 years

For some reason, they don’t find them to be the better man for any office


----------



## Grumblenuts

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They died to preserve the union. First and foremost. And to prevent slavery  from encroaching on the white labor force nationwide.
> 
> And after the war ended, Jim Crow laws took the place of slavery in the north and the south.
> 
> There were 179k black soldiers who fought for the union but were paid lower wages and treated unequally and 40k died fighting for their own freedom.
> 
> But that fact is frequently overlooked or ignored altogether.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still slavery in northern Africa and throughout the Muslim world.
> 
> But we seem to be obsessed with slavery in America, which ended 157 years ago.
> 
> I guess it's kinda hard to blame Whitey for slavery in northern Africa and the Muslim world, though, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obsessed with slavery?
> 
> What about those who are still obsessed with the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmless.  But you just make sure you don't acknowledge non-white, non-American slave owners.  You'll burst into flames.
Click to expand...


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> For some reason, they don’t find them to be the better man for any office
Click to expand...

It could be that since the civil rights act there just aren't that many black republicans. No wait, that would make to much sense. Ya you are right it is cause we are racists.


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> For some reason, they don’t find them to be the better man for any office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could be that since the civil rights act there just aren't that many black republicans. No wait, that would make to much sense. Ya you are right it is cause we are racists.
Click to expand...

Not my fault the Republican can’t convince blacks and minorities that they are their best option.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> For some reason, they don’t find them to be the better man for any office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could be that since the civil rights act there just aren't that many black republicans. No wait, that would make to much sense. Ya you are right it is cause we are racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my fault the Republican can’t convince blacks and minorities that they are their best option.
Click to expand...

Actually it has more to do with the democrats handing out FREE SHIT.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Republicans love giving away free stuff — but only to people who already have lots of stuff


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> For some reason, they don’t find them to be the better man for any office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could be that since the civil rights act there just aren't that many black republicans. No wait, that would make to much sense. Ya you are right it is cause we are racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my fault the Republican can’t convince blacks and minorities that they are their best option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it has more to do with the democrats handing out FREE SHIT.
Click to expand...

Free shit?

Like that $1.5 trillion tax cut Trump gave to billionaires?


----------



## rightwinger

Republicans gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires but they fight against raising minimum wage above $7.25


----------



## Grumblenuts

Why charge anyone for shit anyway?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> Republicans gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires but they fight against raising minimum wage above $7.25


Keep lying Trump cut taxes FOR EVERYONE.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> At this point and time, it truly is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
Click to expand...


_Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?

Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.

The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.


----------



## IM2

JustAGuy1 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
Click to expand...


No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires but they fight against raising minimum wage above $7.25
> 
> 
> 
> Keep lying Trump cut taxes FOR EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

LOL! The poor folks tax cut runs out either this fall or next year while the corporate and rich folks tax cuts are permanent.


----------



## katsteve2012

RetiredGySgt said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I agree you and your buddy IM2 are beyond stupid and if blacks used this as an excuse to join the democrats they were ignorant as hell.
Click to expand...


If you are the kind of moron that would vote for someone to hold the highest office in the land who is slow to react, or doesn't react to your self interests, just based on blind and stupid party loyalty, how do you even manage life's basics.....like walking and talking at the same time?

You were not a black voter in the 1960's, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and truthfully, it's none of your fucking business nor did it affect you anyway.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

katsteve2012 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I agree you and your buddy IM2 are beyond stupid and if blacks used this as an excuse to join the democrats they were ignorant as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are the kind of moron that would vote for someone to hold the highest office in the land who is slow to react, or doesn't react to your self interests, just based on blind and stupid party loyalty, how do you even manage life's basics.....like walking and talking at the same time?
> 
> You were not a black voter in the 1960's, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and truthfully, it's none of your fucking business nor did it affect you anyway.
Click to expand...

Ahh ya you realize your ignorant reason for allowing the democratic party to subjugate blacks for the last 60 years was bad and so you get defensive. Be specific and cite what the democratic party did for blacks in the last 60 years. Then look at what Trump did for blacks in the last 3 years.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires but they fight against raising minimum wage above $7.25
> 
> 
> 
> Keep lying Trump cut taxes FOR EVERYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL! The poor folks tax cut runs out either this fall or next year while the corporate and rich folks tax cuts are permanent.
Click to expand...


The tax cuts reduced the corporate-income-tax rate to 21% from 35%. It also raised the exemption before an estate tax kicked in, going from about 5 million to 11 million. 

That was the biggest benefit of the "tax cut". On the backside, as far as redeployment of the saved tax dollars, corporations for the most part executed stock buy backs as opposed to creating more jobs.


----------



## katsteve2012

RetiredGySgt said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I agree you and your buddy IM2 are beyond stupid and if blacks used this as an excuse to join the democrats they were ignorant as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are the kind of moron that would vote for someone to hold the highest office in the land who is slow to react, or doesn't react to your self interests, just based on blind and stupid party loyalty, how do you even manage life's basics.....like walking and talking at the same time?
> 
> You were not a black voter in the 1960's, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and truthfully, it's none of your fucking business nor did it affect you anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh ya you realize your ignorant reason for allowing the democratic party to subjugate blacks for the last 60 years was bad and so you get defensive. Be specific and cite what the democratic party did for blacks in the last 60 years. Then look at what Trump did for blacks in the last 3 years.
Click to expand...


No one is being defensive, except for you. You commented on what I stated first, and I told you that you don't know what you're talking about, which is true.


Now you are attempting to redirect what I am talking about, just to suit your pro tRUMP rhetoric.

He had nothing to do with the civil rights act in 1964, nor did YOU.

 I am specifically talking about an era when civil rights were the top concern for black citizens, something  that I lived, and something that YOU  obviously know nothing about,  and neither would your savior, tRUMP.

But I will humor you. As opposed to you having the audacity and arrogance to assign me a project of "citing what tRUMP has done for blacks, versus the democratic party", just to engage what you want to hear, why don't you do it yourself? 

Then, I might respond with some facts and information.


.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
Click to expand...


Lol. Candace Owen's. She's just an opportunist, who will change her stripes when the next best opportunity presents itself.

Candace Owens tells Fox News race wasn’t an issue when she was younger, but she seems to be forgetting something


----------



## The Purge

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires but they fight against raising minimum wage above $7.25
> 
> 
> 
> Keep lying Trump cut taxes FOR EVERYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL! The poor folks tax cut runs out either this fall or next year while the corporate and rich folks tax cuts are permanent.
Click to expand...

DemonRAT congress did that but don't let facts get in the way of one of your insane rants..ROTFLMFAO


----------



## The Purge

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Candace Owen's. She's just an opportunist, who will change her stripes when the next best opportunity presents itself.
> 
> Candace Owens tells Fox News race wasn’t an issue when she was younger, but she seems to be forgetting something
Click to expand...

Perhaps  she needs some Al Sharpton lessons


----------



## katsteve2012

The Purge said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> 
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Candace Owen's. She's just an opportunist, who will change her stripes when the next best opportunity presents itself.
> 
> Candace Owens tells Fox News race wasn’t an issue when she was younger, but she seems to be forgetting something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps  she needs some Al Sharpton lessons
Click to expand...


Perhaps. He has a radio talk show, as well as a regular spot on MSNBC, and has come a long way since the 1980's and 90's. Unlike, her, he has consistently carried the same message.


----------



## The Purge

katsteve2012 said:


> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Candace Owen's. She's just an opportunist, who will change her stripes when the next best opportunity presents itself.
> 
> Candace Owens tells Fox News race wasn’t an issue when she was younger, but she seems to be forgetting something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps  she needs some Al Sharpton lessons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps. He has a radio talk show, as well as a regular spot on MSNBC, and has come a long way since the 1980's and 90's. Unlike, her, he has consistently carried the same message.
Click to expand...


----------



## katsteve2012

The Purge said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Candace Owen's. She's just an opportunist, who will change her stripes when the next best opportunity presents itself.
> 
> Candace Owens tells Fox News race wasn’t an issue when she was younger, but she seems to be forgetting something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps  she needs some Al Sharpton lessons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perhaps. He has a radio talk show, as well as a regular spot on MSNBC, and has come a long way since the 1980's and 90's. Unlike, her, he has consistently carried the same message.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> It's an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, no Republican said it; you did.
Click to expand...

No, most republicans just show it.....

Actions speak louder they always say.....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran this year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None ran? Are you REALLY going to claim that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oops, my mistake. Now that you said that, I looked it up and one did. Sorta.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were several blacks running. The DNC didn't want them.
Click to expand...

*"There were several blacks running."*

Which brings us back to the original point of the post.....why aren't there ever "several blacks" running for the republican presidential nominee??

And how come after hundreds and hundreds of comments -- republicans still can't give me any potential black nominees they will support aside from people that are seen as court jesters by even other republicans??


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires but they fight against raising minimum wage above $7.25
> 
> 
> 
> Keep lying Trump cut taxes FOR EVERYONE.
Click to expand...

Yes, I really appreciated that $140


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> For Republicans to put a black person at the top of their ticket, they would have to be willing to tell the racist base of their party that you don’t matter to us.
> 
> They haven’t been willing to say that for 50 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?
> 
> Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.
> 
> The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.
Click to expand...

Electing Obama President was quite an accomplishment in a country with such a racist history. 
Even earned him a Nobel Prize


----------



## JustAGuy1

IM2 said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
Click to expand...


You poor kid, everything you type screams victim hood". Everything is Whitey's fault to you. She is your exact opposite, she is intelligent, educated, well spoken and civil. You? Not so much.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> It's an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, no Republican said it; you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, most republicans just show it.....
Click to expand...


No, most Republicans don't show you that. A _few_ Republicans showed you that and you people just conflated it. 



> Actions speak louder they always say.....



_"Actions speak louder than words" _you say. In the last ten years or so, words are all that is necessary for a person to be condemned as a racist and they don't even have to be specifically racist. It could be nothing more than an opposing viewpoint on a political issue or pointing out that some blacks are racist. Anything and everything will get you labeled as a racist these days. The whole thing has become something akin to religious hysteria.

I mentioned in an earlier post that I had experienced black racism myself. When I related this story not long after I joined this forum, IM2 (with no basis or evidence or knowledge whatsoever) accused me of making the story up. Keep in mind, this was the very first exchange between myself and IM2 and he's calling me a liar. Why? Because I'm white.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me, who is the black Democrat presidential nominee for this cycle?
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?
> 
> Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.
> 
> The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Electing Obama President was quite an accomplishment in a country with such a racist history.
> Even earned him a Nobel Prize
Click to expand...


Getting elected didn't _earn_ him the Nobel Peace prize. That whole thing was a sham. He was given that prize for being the first black president and hadn't even been in office a year for Christ's sake. He hadn't had time to make any real strides in international diplomacy yet. He had not brokered a peace between two warring countries or anything remotely like that. All he did was travel around and tell the world how wretched America was.

Jimmy Carter did a hell of a lot more for diplomacy than Obama did and he didn't receive his Peace prize until 2002, fifteen years after entering office and eleven years after he left office. Obama received his after ten months in office 

Now, before you jump on your high horse and start repeating the old wives tale of the Obama critic just being racist at heart; as presidents go, I don't think Obama was a particularly bad one. I didn't care that he was black and would have welcomed any black candidate. I just found him to be arrogant and I felt like he was only nominated _because_ he's black.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> I mentioned in an earlier post that I had experienced black racism myself.


To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman. Is that what IM2 did to you?


----------



## jasonnfree

RetiredGySgt said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I agree you and your buddy IM2 are beyond stupid and if blacks used this as an excuse to join the democrats they were ignorant as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are the kind of moron that would vote for someone to hold the highest office in the land who is slow to react, or doesn't react to your self interests, just based on blind and stupid party loyalty, how do you even manage life's basics.....like walking and talking at the same time?
> 
> You were not a black voter in the 1960's, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and truthfully, it's none of your fucking business nor did it affect you anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh ya you realize your ignorant reason for allowing the democratic party to subjugate blacks for the last 60 years was bad and so you get defensive. Be specific and cite what the democratic party did for blacks in the last 60 years. Then look at what Trump did for blacks in the last 3 years.
Click to expand...


No link to what trump's done for the Black folks I see other  than this vague and unproven belief that the economy's so great that he's put lots of Blacks to work.  Maybe so with crummy low page jobs but that's all.  How come republicans never field a normal and intelligent  Black to represent them?   Only clueless buffoons like clarence thomas and ben carson so far.


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?
> 
> Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.
> 
> The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Electing Obama President was quite an accomplishment in a country with such a racist history.
> Even earned him a Nobel Prize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting elected didn't _earn_ him the Nobel Peace prize. That whole thing was a sham. He was given that prize for being the first black president and hadn't even been in office a year for Christ's sake. He hadn't had time to make any real strides in international diplomacy yet. He had not brokered a peace between two warring countries or anything remotely like that. All he did was travel around and tell the world how wretched America was.
> 
> Jimmy Carter did a hell of a lot more for diplomacy than Obama did and he didn't receive his Peace prize until 2002, fifteen years after entering office and eleven years after he left office. Obama received his after ten months in office
> 
> Now, before you jump on your high horse and start repeating the old wives tale of the Obama critic just being racist at heart; as presidents go, I don't think Obama was a particularly bad one. I didn't care that he was black and would have welcomed any black candidate. I just found him to be arrogant and I felt like he was only nominated _because_ he's black.
Click to expand...

Obama was one of our greatest Nobel Peace Prize winners
Right up there with MLK and Nelson Mandela.


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe not the President in this cycle
> 
> But good chance at Vice President
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?
> 
> Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.
> 
> The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Electing Obama President was quite an accomplishment in a country with such a racist history.
> Even earned him a Nobel Prize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting elected didn't _earn_ him the Nobel Peace prize. That whole thing was a sham. He was given that prize for being the first black president and hadn't even been in office a year for Christ's sake. He hadn't had time to make any real strides in international diplomacy yet. He had not brokered a peace between two warring countries or anything remotely like that. All he did was travel around and tell the world how wretched America was.
> 
> Jimmy Carter did a hell of a lot more for diplomacy than Obama did and he didn't receive his Peace prize until 2002, fifteen years after entering office and eleven years after he left office. Obama received his after ten months in office
> 
> Now, before you jump on your high horse and start repeating the old wives tale of the Obama critic just being racist at heart; as presidents go, I don't think Obama was a particularly bad one. I didn't care that he was black and would have welcomed any black candidate. I just found him to be arrogant and I felt like he was only nominated _because_ he's black.
Click to expand...

LOL

Your jealousy is noted and laughed at.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned in an earlier post that I had experienced black racism myself.
> 
> 
> 
> To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman.
Click to expand...


Oh Jesus, another one. Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.



> Is that what IM2 did to you?



He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white. So you tell me.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?
> 
> Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.
> 
> The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Electing Obama President was quite an accomplishment in a country with such a racist history.
> Even earned him a Nobel Prize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting elected didn't _earn_ him the Nobel Peace prize. That whole thing was a sham. He was given that prize for being the first black president and hadn't even been in office a year for Christ's sake. He hadn't had time to make any real strides in international diplomacy yet. He had not brokered a peace between two warring countries or anything remotely like that. All he did was travel around and tell the world how wretched America was.
> 
> Jimmy Carter did a hell of a lot more for diplomacy than Obama did and he didn't receive his Peace prize until 2002, fifteen years after entering office and eleven years after he left office. Obama received his after ten months in office
> 
> Now, before you jump on your high horse and start repeating the old wives tale of the Obama critic just being racist at heart; as presidents go, I don't think Obama was a particularly bad one. I didn't care that he was black and would have welcomed any black candidate. I just found him to be arrogant and I felt like he was only nominated _because_ he's black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was one of our greatest Nobel Peace Prize winners
> Right up there with MLK and Nelson Mandela.
Click to expand...


Bullshit. He received it because he is a black man who succeeded at becoming president. He hadn't achieved any diplomatic or peaceful victories of note in the ten months he had been in office.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?
> 
> Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.
> 
> The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Electing Obama President was quite an accomplishment in a country with such a racist history.
> Even earned him a Nobel Prize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting elected didn't _earn_ him the Nobel Peace prize. That whole thing was a sham. He was given that prize for being the first black president and hadn't even been in office a year for Christ's sake. He hadn't had time to make any real strides in international diplomacy yet. He had not brokered a peace between two warring countries or anything remotely like that. All he did was travel around and tell the world how wretched America was.
> 
> Jimmy Carter did a hell of a lot more for diplomacy than Obama did and he didn't receive his Peace prize until 2002, fifteen years after entering office and eleven years after he left office. Obama received his after ten months in office
> 
> Now, before you jump on your high horse and start repeating the old wives tale of the Obama critic just being racist at heart; as presidents go, I don't think Obama was a particularly bad one. I didn't care that he was black and would have welcomed any black candidate. I just found him to be arrogant and I felt like he was only nominated _because_ he's black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your jealousy is noted and laughed at.
Click to expand...


Jealosy of what?


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?
> 
> Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.
> 
> The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Electing Obama President was quite an accomplishment in a country with such a racist history.
> Even earned him a Nobel Prize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting elected didn't _earn_ him the Nobel Peace prize. That whole thing was a sham. He was given that prize for being the first black president and hadn't even been in office a year for Christ's sake. He hadn't had time to make any real strides in international diplomacy yet. He had not brokered a peace between two warring countries or anything remotely like that. All he did was travel around and tell the world how wretched America was.
> 
> Jimmy Carter did a hell of a lot more for diplomacy than Obama did and he didn't receive his Peace prize until 2002, fifteen years after entering office and eleven years after he left office. Obama received his after ten months in office
> 
> Now, before you jump on your high horse and start repeating the old wives tale of the Obama critic just being racist at heart; as presidents go, I don't think Obama was a particularly bad one. I didn't care that he was black and would have welcomed any black candidate. I just found him to be arrogant and I felt like he was only nominated _because_ he's black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was one of our greatest Nobel Peace Prize winners
> Right up there with MLK and Nelson Mandela.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. He received it because he is a black man who succeeded at becoming president. He hadn't achieved any diplomatic or peaceful victories of note in the ten months he had been in office.
Click to expand...

MLK and Mandela had a dream

Obama WAS the dream


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to tell this racist idiot that before he drops this lie? Correll, white men died to save the union and if we use your rationale, white men died to correct their own mistake. They didn't have to die for slavery, because they never should have had slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is still slavery in northern Africa and throughout the Muslim world.
> 
> But we seem to be obsessed with slavery in America, which ended 157 years ago.
> 
> I guess it's kinda hard to blame Whitey for slavery in northern Africa and the Muslim world, though, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obsessed with slavery?
> 
> What about those who are still obsessed with the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmless.  But you just make sure you don't acknowledge non-white, non-American slave owners.  You'll burst into flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It would have been easier for you to say, "I'm an idiot, and I have no rational rebuttal."


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Democrats don't have much of a better record for nominating blacks for president so I really don't see any justification for you guys yukking it up amongst yourselves over this.
> 
> As for myself, I hope we have a Republican black president at some point. But more importantly, I'd rather he be elected because he's the better man for the job, not because of his skin color.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> For some reason, they don’t find them to be the better man for any office
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It could be that since the civil rights act there just aren't that many black republicans. No wait, that would make to much sense. Ya you are right it is cause we are racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my fault the Republican can’t convince blacks and minorities that they are their best option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it has more to do with the democrats handing out FREE SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free shit?
> 
> Like that $1.5 trillion tax cut Trump gave to billionaires?
Click to expand...

I got a tax cut.  Everyone with a job did.

So it's understandable why you didn't get one.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Nobody_ has much of a record for electing blacks to higher office. Why do you think IM2 hates white people and is so pissed all the time?
> 
> Democrats comprise a little over half the number of registered voters in this country but still only managed to get one black person elected president. And ironically, white Democrats outnumber black Democrats almost three to one, but according to IM2, all whites are accountable for historic and systemic racism. Which means that the party he looks to as a savior of the black man is comprised of more people of the problem race than the one he's railing against.
> 
> The Republican party is not the only entity guilty of holding back the black man.
> 
> 
> 
> Electing Obama President was quite an accomplishment in a country with such a racist history.
> Even earned him a Nobel Prize
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting elected didn't _earn_ him the Nobel Peace prize. That whole thing was a sham. He was given that prize for being the first black president and hadn't even been in office a year for Christ's sake. He hadn't had time to make any real strides in international diplomacy yet. He had not brokered a peace between two warring countries or anything remotely like that. All he did was travel around and tell the world how wretched America was.
> 
> Jimmy Carter did a hell of a lot more for diplomacy than Obama did and he didn't receive his Peace prize until 2002, fifteen years after entering office and eleven years after he left office. Obama received his after ten months in office
> 
> Now, before you jump on your high horse and start repeating the old wives tale of the Obama critic just being racist at heart; as presidents go, I don't think Obama was a particularly bad one. I didn't care that he was black and would have welcomed any black candidate. I just found him to be arrogant and I felt like he was only nominated _because_ he's black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obama was one of our greatest Nobel Peace Prize winners
> Right up there with MLK and Nelson Mandela.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit. He received it because he is a black man who succeeded at becoming president. He hadn't achieved any diplomatic or peaceful victories of note in the ten months he had been in office.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MLK and Mandela had a dream
> 
> Obama WAS the dream
Click to expand...


Obama's being elected was simply the realization of that dream. He himself had accomplished nothing in the way of advancing peace in the short time he was in office at that point.


----------



## Grumblenuts

daveman said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most of the free world voluntarily gave up slavery without having to kill 600,000 men.
> 
> 
> 
> There is still slavery in northern Africa and throughout the Muslim world.
> 
> But we seem to be obsessed with slavery in America, which ended 157 years ago.
> 
> I guess it's kinda hard to blame Whitey for slavery in northern Africa and the Muslim world, though, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obsessed with slavery?
> 
> What about those who are still obsessed with the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmless.  But you just make sure you don't acknowledge non-white, non-American slave owners.  You'll burst into flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would have been easier for you to say, "I'm an idiot, and I have no rational rebuttal."
Click to expand...

Not only would that be highly inaccurate.. This is much easier>>>




Those who refuse to laugh at themselves.. shoot their own eye out.


----------



## Jitss617

Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.


My definition is what dictionaries provide.


> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.


The power dynamic is implicit. Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?


Ghost of a Rider said:


> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.


I doubt it was that simplistic, but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

You know what's funny about all this? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, as far as I know, no majority-white Western developed nation except the U.S. has ever had a black leader. Neither the U.K. (that so many are quick to cite as being one of the first countries to abolish slavery), Canada, Germany, France, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and who knows how many others have ever had a black president/chancellor/prime minister.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, Republicans don’t have much of a record for electing blacks to any higher office.
> President, Governor, Senator, Congress.
> Just EIGHT in the last 150 years
> 
> For some reason, they don’t find them to be the better man for any office
> 
> 
> 
> It could be that since the civil rights act there just aren't that many black republicans. No wait, that would make to much sense. Ya you are right it is cause we are racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not my fault the Republican can’t convince blacks and minorities that they are their best option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it has more to do with the democrats handing out FREE SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free shit?
> 
> Like that $1.5 trillion tax cut Trump gave to billionaires?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got a tax cut.  Everyone with a job did.
> 
> So it's understandable why you didn't get one.
Click to expand...


The hell they did

Not if you were in a blue state. You had your SALT tax deduction capped and lost your personal exemption.


----------



## rightwinger

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You know what's funny about all this? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, as far as I know, no majority-white Western developed nation except the U.S. has ever had a black leader. Neither the U.K. (that so many are quick to cite as being one of the first countries to abolish slavery), Canada, Germany, France, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and who knows how many others have ever had a black president/chancellor/prime minister.


Makes you proud to be an American doesn’t it?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except you leapt from that, to talking about supporting the use of government power to enforce Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> YOU did that, not me. So, drop your pretense that you did not.
> 
> 
> His stated reason was not opposition to Civil Rights but concern about how that particular bill addressed the issue.
> 
> 
> Considering his life long support of Civil Rights AND smaller government, that position is highly credible.
> 
> 
> Thus his position and his presidential run was not the beginning of the debunked conspiracy theory of "The Southern Strategy".
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis  of dem control of the South, was broken.
> 
> This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation.
> 
> 
> Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your math
Click to expand...



I'm not sure why it is "my" math, as we are both speculating on what went on with Southern voters, but sure.


So, lets take a look.

1956, Ike republican vs stevenson dem,  the dem won 56.5% to 40%. 

1956 United States presidential election in Alabama - Wikipedia



1960, Kennedy won over Nixon, 56.4% to 42%.

1964 Goldwater the republican won over the Dem, 69.4% vs 56.4%

1968 WALLACE won the state with 65.9% vs, 19.7% for the dem, and 14% for Nixon.


1972 Nixon won it with 72.4% vs 25.5% for the dem.

1976 CARTER won it, with 55.5% vs 42.6%.


So, Jim Crow South, the dems allied with the racists of the South, had a solid hold on 60% vs about 40% of the vote for Republicans.


Goldwater vs Johnson, in 64, it seems at least 30% crossed party lines.


68 looks like an odd outlier, with Wallace taking a huge majority, vs what we can assume were hard core dem and republican partisans of less than 20% for the dem and less than 15% for Nixon. Interestingly, this is AFTER you libs claim the Southern Strategy was in operation...


in 72, Nixon won Alabama, 72% vs 25% for a very liberal North Eastern Dem.


in 1976, again well after the Southern Strategy was supposed to be in operation, Jimmy CARTER, a strong Civil Rights Dem, won the State with a strong, 55 percent of the vote against 42, percent for Ford.


Elections in Alabama - Wikipedia


This is interesting. It shows Carter in 76, LOSING the white vote, 48% to 52%.


The narrative that the Myth of the Southern Strategy tells, is that the Evul Racist Whites of the South, betrayed by the dems, and pandered to by Evul Whites like Goldwater and Nixon, stopped voting dem and started voting republicans.



What we see instead is that 40 percent of whites in Alabama, one of the deepest and most reactionary states, were always voting republican, and that even after all the changes, that number only climbed, at most ten or twenty percent, depending on the candidates. 


Ronald REAGAN, only beat Jimmy freaking CARTER, by less than TWO percentage points, in 1980. 



Decades of supposed "Southern Strategy", moved the republican vote from 42% in 1962 to 48.7% in 1980.



A shift of less than ten percent of the vote.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly, that was only the start for the Republican Party as they embraced the deplorables and sold out minorities, immigrants and Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such a piece of shit. You say stupid ass vague general shit like this, with no specifics, and when I call you on it, you pretend that I am putting words in your mouth.
> 
> 
> You are a dishonest, cowardly race baiting piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I said was quite specific.
> 
> Today’s Republican Party is a rehash of the Know Nothings who exploited hatred of Irish immigrants and Catholics to rise to political power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If that was true, you would not spend so much time lying. If that was true, you would admit that Barry Goldwater was not opposed to civil rights, but just HOW that particular bill went about getting there.
> 
> 
> 
> You lie, because you know that you have to lie, to get people to vote for the agenda you want, that you know is bad for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s the way it works
> 
> I AM NOT A RACIST
> But I support the rights of states to enforce racism
Click to expand...




Or more honestly, 


I AM NOT A RACIST, AND I THINK THIS METHOD OF FIGHTING RACISM IS THE WRONG WAY TO DO IT.



AND RW IS AN ASSHOLE.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which was a conflict with what blacks wanted. But it was not an insult to their intelligence. It would only have been an insult to their intelligence if he has been lying about why he was doing it. That was my point. It is pathetic that you cannot admit that.
> 
> 
> Because the cure had the potential to be another additional problem for the country.
> 
> 
> No, it is not. Stating that he believed that the way the bill went about it was wrong, is not the same as being against the goal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. It was a practical matter of self interest to blacks. And Goldwater disagreeing with them on how to get there, was NOT an insult to them. It was a political disagreement.
> 
> 
> It was only an insult to their intelligence, if he was LYING about his reasons. Which is why you denying that you said that, is stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is understandable that blacks, suffering under Jim Crow, and facing real racism and discrimination, were not patient with any discussion of METHODS, of fighting racism and discrimination.
> 
> 
> IMO, that blame for the lie, lies with the dem liberals, who told and still tell them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> ......
Click to expand...





I am not doubting what you say you saw. I am pointing out that the choice of those blacks to take offense to a political disagreement, was their choice and not on Goldwater.



But does not change the fact that disagreeing on how to do something, is not the same as opposing the goal.


That you and many other blacks choose to take offense over anything less than complete support for*  your way *of doing things, 


because it was so important to you, and/or your personal stake in the matter was so great,


does not change that.


----------



## Correll

RetiredGySgt said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply put, YOU were not a black voter in 1964, nor were you even born. I was, and I heard them voice their disdain for Goldwaters draconian "states rights, government overreach" INSULT, first hand.
> 
> You, did not.
> 
> My parents and grandparents were involved in the civil rights movement, and on foot they went out and knocked on doors to convince registered black voters in our community to leave the Republican party.
> 
> 
> Because they were OUTRAGED and INSULTED.
> 
> Black voters WERE insulted by it. PERIOD.
> 
> Your post is nothing but speculation and a thinly veiled defense of an ideology that the civil war should have buried FOREVER.
> 
> Consequently, his position further drove black voters out of the Republican party, as it should have.
> 
> And it also left a PERMANENT stain on his legacy. As it SHOULD HAVE.
> 
> Putting the rights of citizens on hold due to what an outdated politician calls "government overreach," WAS AN INSULT.
> 
> PERIOD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
Click to expand...



AND, you're the bad guy for pointing it out.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Umm...you were the one jumping to a conclusion
> I merely corrected you on it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis  of dem control of the South, was broken.
> 
> This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation.
> 
> 
> Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your math
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it is "my" math, as we are both speculating on what went on with Southern voters, but sure.
> 
> 
> So, lets take a look.
> 
> 1956, Ike republican vs stevenson dem,  the dem won 56.5% to 40%.
> 
> 1956 United States presidential election in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 1960, Kennedy won over Nixon, 56.4% to 42%.
> 
> 1964 Goldwater the republican won over the Dem, 69.4% vs 56.4%
> 
> 1968 WALLACE won the state with 65.9% vs, 19.7% for the dem, and 14% for Nixon.
> 
> 
> 1972 Nixon won it with 72.4% vs 25.5% for the dem.
> 
> 1976 CARTER won it, with 55.5% vs 42.6%.
> 
> 
> So, Jim Crow South, the dems allied with the racists of the South, had a solid hold on 60% vs about 40% of the vote for Republicans.
> 
> 
> Goldwater vs Johnson, in 64, it seems at least 30% crossed party lines.
> 
> 
> 68 looks like an odd outlier, with Wallace taking a huge majority, vs what we can assume were hard core dem and republican partisans of less than 20% for the dem and less than 15% for Nixon. Interestingly, this is AFTER you libs claim the Southern Strategy was in operation...
> 
> 
> in 72, Nixon won Alabama, 72% vs 25% for a very liberal North Eastern Dem.
> 
> 
> in 1976, again well after the Southern Strategy was supposed to be in operation, Jimmy CARTER, a strong Civil Rights Dem, won the State with a strong, 55 percent of the vote against 42, percent for Ford.
> 
> 
> Elections in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> This is interesting. It shows Carter in 76, LOSING the white vote, 48% to 52%.
> 
> 
> The narrative that the Myth of the Southern Strategy tells, is that the Evul Racist Whites of the South, betrayed by the dems, and pandered to by Evul Whites like Goldwater and Nixon, stopped voting dem and started voting republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> What we see instead is that 40 percent of whites in Alabama, one of the deepest and most reactionary states, were always voting republican, and that even after all the changes, that number only climbed, at most ten or twenty percent, depending on the candidates.
> 
> 
> Ronald REAGAN, only beat Jimmy freaking CARTER, by less than TWO percentage points, in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> Decades of supposed "Southern Strategy", moved the republican vote from 42% in 1962 to 48.7% in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> A shift of less than ten percent of the vote.
Click to expand...

So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964. 

1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
1980. South Supported Republican Reagan. 

So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red

More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed it was an "insult to their intelligence".
> 
> 
> That statement only makes sense, if you were assuming his stated position was a lie.
> 
> 
> I have no doubt that the blacks of the time disagreed with him on that issue. If they choose to take offense at his position, that was their choice. I have no doubt that that was not Barry Goldwater's intent.
> 
> 
> "Stain"? Time will tell. IMO, the government has certainly gone into "overreach" and the results have not been good.
> 
> 
> IN the future, historians, white and black, might look back at him and his defeat as a very bad turning point for the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to think as you wish. But the black voters of that generation DID take his position as an INSULT to their intelligence and they took it as an assault upon their value as tax paying citizens.
> 
> And I seriously doubt that anyone who believes in equality of the most basic rights for all citizens will view his defeat  in the future as a "bad turning point.
> 
> If they have even a shred of moral decency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The reason you dic suckers remain on the wrong side of history is because you really do believe this dumb shit you just said.....
Click to expand...




When is the last time you called a man a dick sucker to his face? Or is that just something you do, when you are safe, in your mommy's basement, online?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that is what this is about. You lefties NEED to define any political disagreements as emotionally and personally as possible,
> 
> 
> because you use that for demagoguery, to turn various groups of voters, against your enemies, to prevent them from listening to the other side, on other issues.
> 
> 
> It is how you are dividing America.
> 
> 
> Right now, issues such as Abortion could be a bridge between black conservatives and the Republican Party, which represents the majority of whites.
> 
> 
> BUT, people like you, lie about valid political disagreements and turn them into poison.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater, disagreeing on how to achieve equality, was not an insult to blacks. It was a valid political disagreement.
> 
> But you people need to lie about it, to keep your lock  on black votes.
> 
> You are purposefully dividing this nation, for partisan gain.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I agree you and your buddy IM2 are beyond stupid and if blacks used this as an excuse to join the democrats they were ignorant as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We really could care less about what you think. This ain't 1860 and you party damn near unanimously voted against a voting rights measure last year. Blacks were republicans because Lincoln signed the emancipation proclamation. After 100 years of apartheid, Johnson signed 2 measures that amounted to our second and third emancipation proclamations. Therefore we vote mostly democrat. Personally I am, not a member of either party. Because like Malcolm said:
Click to expand...



Do you consider yourself an American?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> You know what's funny about all this? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, as far as I know, no majority-white Western developed nation except the U.S. has ever had a black leader. Neither the U.K. (that so many are quick to cite as being one of the first countries to abolish slavery), Canada, Germany, France, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and who knows how many others have ever had a black president/chancellor/prime minister.


*Black Kings (and Queens) Ruled Europe For Almost 700 Years*


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. YOu are a dishonest coward.
> 
> 
> Barry Goldwater was not pandering to southern racists as you claimed. His opposition to that specific bill was not based on opposition to Civil Rights but to how that bill attempted to achieve them.
> 
> 
> HIs campaign did not reflect the GOP "flipping" on Civil Rights, nor pandering to southern racists, as you claimed.
> 
> 
> That you claimed those things and now when called on your shit, are trying to weasel out of them, instead of defending them, or admitting you were wrong,
> 
> 
> is you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis  of dem control of the South, was broken.
> 
> This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation.
> 
> 
> Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your math
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it is "my" math, as we are both speculating on what went on with Southern voters, but sure.
> 
> 
> So, lets take a look.
> 
> 1956, Ike republican vs stevenson dem,  the dem won 56.5% to 40%.
> 
> 1956 United States presidential election in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 1960, Kennedy won over Nixon, 56.4% to 42%.
> 
> 1964 Goldwater the republican won over the Dem, 69.4% vs 56.4%
> 
> 1968 WALLACE won the state with 65.9% vs, 19.7% for the dem, and 14% for Nixon.
> 
> 
> 1972 Nixon won it with 72.4% vs 25.5% for the dem.
> 
> 1976 CARTER won it, with 55.5% vs 42.6%.
> 
> 
> So, Jim Crow South, the dems allied with the racists of the South, had a solid hold on 60% vs about 40% of the vote for Republicans.
> 
> 
> Goldwater vs Johnson, in 64, it seems at least 30% crossed party lines.
> 
> 
> 68 looks like an odd outlier, with Wallace taking a huge majority, vs what we can assume were hard core dem and republican partisans of less than 20% for the dem and less than 15% for Nixon. Interestingly, this is AFTER you libs claim the Southern Strategy was in operation...
> 
> 
> in 72, Nixon won Alabama, 72% vs 25% for a very liberal North Eastern Dem.
> 
> 
> in 1976, again well after the Southern Strategy was supposed to be in operation, Jimmy CARTER, a strong Civil Rights Dem, won the State with a strong, 55 percent of the vote against 42, percent for Ford.
> 
> 
> Elections in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> This is interesting. It shows Carter in 76, LOSING the white vote, 48% to 52%.
> 
> 
> The narrative that the Myth of the Southern Strategy tells, is that the Evul Racist Whites of the South, betrayed by the dems, and pandered to by Evul Whites like Goldwater and Nixon, stopped voting dem and started voting republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> What we see instead is that 40 percent of whites in Alabama, one of the deepest and most reactionary states, were always voting republican, and that even after all the changes, that number only climbed, at most ten or twenty percent, depending on the candidates.
> 
> 
> Ronald REAGAN, only beat Jimmy freaking CARTER, by less than TWO percentage points, in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> Decades of supposed "Southern Strategy", moved the republican vote from 42% in 1962 to 48.7% in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> A shift of less than ten percent of the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
Click to expand...




1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?

2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.


3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit.
Click to expand...


No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:

2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.

*3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
*
Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:

1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
*2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*



> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?



He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.





> I doubt it was that simplistic,



Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.

It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes

My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.



> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?



It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.

Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
Click to expand...



Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.



That is their "justification".


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

rightwinger said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's funny about all this? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, as far as I know, no majority-white Western developed nation except the U.S. has ever had a black leader. Neither the U.K. (that so many are quick to cite as being one of the first countries to abolish slavery), Canada, Germany, France, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and who knows how many others have ever had a black president/chancellor/prime minister.
> 
> 
> 
> Makes you proud to be an American doesn’t it?
Click to expand...


It does, actually. I'm glad we've made the strides in racial harmony that we have. I just find it ironic that people like you paint America as some backwards shithole where blacks can't get ahead and yet no one else has ever elected a black leader.

I don't know what it is you think I'm doing here but I'm not racist and have said nothing critical of blacks. I have black friends, coworkers and family. I have a black grandniece and grandnephew that I love dearly and a nephew that recently adopted a black boy.

I simply have a problem with hypocrisy, double standards and I call bullshit when I see it. I think Obama was nominated and elected because he's black and I think he was given the Nobel prize because he's black. This is not a criticism of him as a person, a black man or even as president. It's just my opinion as to how it all came about.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's funny about all this? Someone correct me if I'm wrong but, as far as I know, no majority-white Western developed nation except the U.S. has ever had a black leader. Neither the U.K. (that so many are quick to cite as being one of the first countries to abolish slavery), Canada, Germany, France, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and who knows how many others have ever had a black president/chancellor/prime minister.
> 
> 
> 
> *Black Kings (and Queens) Ruled Europe For Almost 700 Years*
Click to expand...


And every one of them got there by conquering.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how those views allowed Goldwater to win S Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Louisiana over a southern Democrat
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis  of dem control of the South, was broken.
> 
> This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation.
> 
> 
> Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show your math
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it is "my" math, as we are both speculating on what went on with Southern voters, but sure.
> 
> 
> So, lets take a look.
> 
> 1956, Ike republican vs stevenson dem,  the dem won 56.5% to 40%.
> 
> 1956 United States presidential election in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 1960, Kennedy won over Nixon, 56.4% to 42%.
> 
> 1964 Goldwater the republican won over the Dem, 69.4% vs 56.4%
> 
> 1968 WALLACE won the state with 65.9% vs, 19.7% for the dem, and 14% for Nixon.
> 
> 
> 1972 Nixon won it with 72.4% vs 25.5% for the dem.
> 
> 1976 CARTER won it, with 55.5% vs 42.6%.
> 
> 
> So, Jim Crow South, the dems allied with the racists of the South, had a solid hold on 60% vs about 40% of the vote for Republicans.
> 
> 
> Goldwater vs Johnson, in 64, it seems at least 30% crossed party lines.
> 
> 
> 68 looks like an odd outlier, with Wallace taking a huge majority, vs what we can assume were hard core dem and republican partisans of less than 20% for the dem and less than 15% for Nixon. Interestingly, this is AFTER you libs claim the Southern Strategy was in operation...
> 
> 
> in 72, Nixon won Alabama, 72% vs 25% for a very liberal North Eastern Dem.
> 
> 
> in 1976, again well after the Southern Strategy was supposed to be in operation, Jimmy CARTER, a strong Civil Rights Dem, won the State with a strong, 55 percent of the vote against 42, percent for Ford.
> 
> 
> Elections in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> This is interesting. It shows Carter in 76, LOSING the white vote, 48% to 52%.
> 
> 
> The narrative that the Myth of the Southern Strategy tells, is that the Evul Racist Whites of the South, betrayed by the dems, and pandered to by Evul Whites like Goldwater and Nixon, stopped voting dem and started voting republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> What we see instead is that 40 percent of whites in Alabama, one of the deepest and most reactionary states, were always voting republican, and that even after all the changes, that number only climbed, at most ten or twenty percent, depending on the candidates.
> 
> 
> Ronald REAGAN, only beat Jimmy freaking CARTER, by less than TWO percentage points, in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> Decades of supposed "Southern Strategy", moved the republican vote from 42% in 1962 to 48.7% in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> A shift of less than ten percent of the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
Click to expand...

WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
New England?


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As you were told before, and are being told for the final time, I SAW the outrage in registered black voters over Goldwaters position on passing the civil rights bill. It was a condescending  INSULT and an ASSAULT on the rights of black  citizens, and there is no rhetoric that you can spew to justify it as being "OK".
> 
> You were not even a blip on the radar during that era, and for YOU to climb on a soapbox and make a feeble attempt to lecture someone that saw it first hand is an an asinine joke that I am not even going to dignify with an argument.
> 
> Who in the hell do you think you are to categorize someone that you know nothing about as a so called "lefty, trying to divide the country", simply because I lived in an era where I actually saw where an outdated politician used peoples rights as a bargaining chip to take a position on a moral issue that should have been a no brainer based on human decency?
> 
> You nor anyone that you know was ever forced to ride in the back of a bus, accept substandard public services, be denied service based on race, or had urine and feces thrown on them for peacefully protesting just for the right to vote.
> 
> I saw those things happen, before you were even spit out.
> 
> You could not even imagine what that actually looks like. And if you actually experienced it first hand you would probably committ suicide or turn into a mass shooter.
> 
> The way that you constantly bellyache and piss and moan about "discrimination against white people", but seem to think it was ok to put BASIC rights for all on hold because of "government overreach"  is a glaring example of the REAL HYPOCRISY that actually divides this country.
> 
> Your double standards for justice, make you a hypocrite who talks out of both sides of your mouth.
> 
> Barry Goldwater disagreeing with implementing equal rights for all for the sake of what he thought was proper  "government protocol" was wrong, which is exactly why he  he lost the election and contributed to driving numerous black voters out of YOUR party.
> 
> And for you to even attempt to wage a weak argument in a laughable effort  to defend his poor decision nearly 60 years ago, just for the purpose of justifying  your blind political loyalty in the face of utter stupidity speaks volumes about you as a person.
> 
> Everytime that I make the mistake of wasting time engaging you in a conversation of any kind, you manage to sink to the same level of absurdity, outright bald faced lies, and personal politics over country.
> 
> But at least  you are a great reminder of the fact that the times which I recall so well, from many decades ago, could return very quickly because of people like YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get this right, blacks are SO IGNORANT that while the vast majority of Republicans and MORE then democrats I might add, voted for the bill, they were upset one guy didn't? So upset they joined the party that actually voted against it more then the Republicans? REALLY?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> It is obvious that YOUR basic rights as a citizen have NEVER  been subject to any kind of  "vote", so you would be uninformed on how people who have, actually felt about even "temporary" opposition to their rights by a person who possibly could have led the country, for the sake of political posturing to appease a historically bigoted, backward geographical  region.
> 
> Have you forgotten that this:ONE GUY" was running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES  in that year?
> 
> That happens to be the person who is often referred to as the so called "leader of the free world". In that era, there WAS NOT true freedom for all, in America, in case you were unaware of that fact.
> 
> The person who signed the legislation into law got the votes of the people who the law affected.
> 
> The level of ignorance of some people here is BEYOND  astonishing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ya I agree you and your buddy IM2 are beyond stupid and if blacks used this as an excuse to join the democrats they were ignorant as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are the kind of moron that would vote for someone to hold the highest office in the land who is slow to react, or doesn't react to your self interests, just based on blind and stupid party loyalty, how do you even manage life's basics.....like walking and talking at the same time?
> 
> You were not a black voter in the 1960's, so you don't know what the hell you're talking about, and truthfully, it's none of your fucking business nor did it affect you anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh ya you realize your ignorant reason for allowing the democratic party to subjugate blacks for the last 60 years was bad and so you get defensive. Be specific and cite what the democratic party did for blacks in the last 60 years. Then look at what Trump did for blacks in the last 3 years.
Click to expand...


We don't have to explain to your white racist ass why blacks are mostly democrats. And I'm not saying this because I can't show your ass anything either *xxxx xxx*. trump has done nothing for us but repeat the unemployment rate. A rate that was dropping before he took office. I showed you one reason why we don't vote republican when I showed you that all but 1 republican voted against a voting rights bill last fall. That's enough for you to understand why.


----------



## IM2

The Purge said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans gave a $1.5 trillion tax cut to billionaires but they fight against raising minimum wage above $7.25
> 
> 
> 
> Keep lying Trump cut taxes FOR EVERYONE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL! The poor folks tax cut runs out either this fall or next year while the corporate and rich folks tax cuts are permanent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> DemonRAT congress did that but don't let facts get in the way of one of your insane rants..ROTFLMFAO
Click to expand...


The Trump-GOP tax cut law, formally known as the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA), passed Congress *Dec. 20, 2017*, and was signed into law by President Trump two days later. Paul Ryan was the speaker when the tax cut was passed.

Shut  the fuck up.


----------



## IM2

The Purge said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> 
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lol. Candace Owen's. She's just an opportunist, who will change her stripes when the next best opportunity presents itself.
> 
> Candace Owens tells Fox News race wasn’t an issue when she was younger, but she seems to be forgetting something
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perhaps  she needs some Al Sharpton lessons
Click to expand...


You racists can't stand Sharpton because he  tells the truth. You love Owens because she says what you desperately need and want to hear. All a black person has to do in order to get rich quick is denigrate other blacks, say that racism doesn't exist, and then tell blacks that the problems we face we did to ourselves. You racist suckers will pay top dollar to listen to them speak and buy books and everything else from blacks who do this. A good black con man/woman could become a billionaire within 5 years and become a leading republican political presidential candidate if they chose this path. They would never be nominated  for president because you racists will want to milk this for as long as you can. I proved that when I created the thread "I Was Wrong." You racists were so busy patting me on the back and congratulating me for finally seeing the so called light, that you didn't know you were being played. LOL!


----------



## IM2

So the term wb is now x'd out. For those who made that decision, try looking at the history of the term, then come back and explain that how for 243 years that term has proudly used by whites to denote superiority and now its supposedly a slur equal to the n word. Compare the use of that word to the use of  the n word then ask yourself, *"AM I MAKING A FALSE EQUIVALENCE?"*


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the dems flipping on the civil rights issue, the bloc voting of the racists that was the basis  of dem control of the South, was broken.
> 
> This put the South in play. I'm not sure how much of a shift in actual voting was required to shift the states from blue to read. If the racists just stayed home, because they no longer had a voice, that alone might have done it. Southerns insulted by the idea of Yankees running their internal affairs likely contributed. Old school racists, who might still have harbored hopes of maintaining Jim Crow without help from their northern Dem allies, might have sided with Goldwater, hoping to avoid direct Federal interference. But all of that is speculation.
> 
> 
> Do you want to compare the actual percent changes in the votes from the previous election for discussion purposes, or are you going to go back to troll boy hit and run snark comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Show your math
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it is "my" math, as we are both speculating on what went on with Southern voters, but sure.
> 
> 
> So, lets take a look.
> 
> 1956, Ike republican vs stevenson dem,  the dem won 56.5% to 40%.
> 
> 1956 United States presidential election in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 1960, Kennedy won over Nixon, 56.4% to 42%.
> 
> 1964 Goldwater the republican won over the Dem, 69.4% vs 56.4%
> 
> 1968 WALLACE won the state with 65.9% vs, 19.7% for the dem, and 14% for Nixon.
> 
> 
> 1972 Nixon won it with 72.4% vs 25.5% for the dem.
> 
> 1976 CARTER won it, with 55.5% vs 42.6%.
> 
> 
> So, Jim Crow South, the dems allied with the racists of the South, had a solid hold on 60% vs about 40% of the vote for Republicans.
> 
> 
> Goldwater vs Johnson, in 64, it seems at least 30% crossed party lines.
> 
> 
> 68 looks like an odd outlier, with Wallace taking a huge majority, vs what we can assume were hard core dem and republican partisans of less than 20% for the dem and less than 15% for Nixon. Interestingly, this is AFTER you libs claim the Southern Strategy was in operation...
> 
> 
> in 72, Nixon won Alabama, 72% vs 25% for a very liberal North Eastern Dem.
> 
> 
> in 1976, again well after the Southern Strategy was supposed to be in operation, Jimmy CARTER, a strong Civil Rights Dem, won the State with a strong, 55 percent of the vote against 42, percent for Ford.
> 
> 
> Elections in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> This is interesting. It shows Carter in 76, LOSING the white vote, 48% to 52%.
> 
> 
> The narrative that the Myth of the Southern Strategy tells, is that the Evul Racist Whites of the South, betrayed by the dems, and pandered to by Evul Whites like Goldwater and Nixon, stopped voting dem and started voting republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> What we see instead is that 40 percent of whites in Alabama, one of the deepest and most reactionary states, were always voting republican, and that even after all the changes, that number only climbed, at most ten or twenty percent, depending on the candidates.
> 
> 
> Ronald REAGAN, only beat Jimmy freaking CARTER, by less than TWO percentage points, in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> Decades of supposed "Southern Strategy", moved the republican vote from 42% in 1962 to 48.7% in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> A shift of less than ten percent of the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
Click to expand...




I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.



Were you lying or just wrong?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show your math
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it is "my" math, as we are both speculating on what went on with Southern voters, but sure.
> 
> 
> So, lets take a look.
> 
> 1956, Ike republican vs stevenson dem,  the dem won 56.5% to 40%.
> 
> 1956 United States presidential election in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 1960, Kennedy won over Nixon, 56.4% to 42%.
> 
> 1964 Goldwater the republican won over the Dem, 69.4% vs 56.4%
> 
> 1968 WALLACE won the state with 65.9% vs, 19.7% for the dem, and 14% for Nixon.
> 
> 
> 1972 Nixon won it with 72.4% vs 25.5% for the dem.
> 
> 1976 CARTER won it, with 55.5% vs 42.6%.
> 
> 
> So, Jim Crow South, the dems allied with the racists of the South, had a solid hold on 60% vs about 40% of the vote for Republicans.
> 
> 
> Goldwater vs Johnson, in 64, it seems at least 30% crossed party lines.
> 
> 
> 68 looks like an odd outlier, with Wallace taking a huge majority, vs what we can assume were hard core dem and republican partisans of less than 20% for the dem and less than 15% for Nixon. Interestingly, this is AFTER you libs claim the Southern Strategy was in operation...
> 
> 
> in 72, Nixon won Alabama, 72% vs 25% for a very liberal North Eastern Dem.
> 
> 
> in 1976, again well after the Southern Strategy was supposed to be in operation, Jimmy CARTER, a strong Civil Rights Dem, won the State with a strong, 55 percent of the vote against 42, percent for Ford.
> 
> 
> Elections in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> This is interesting. It shows Carter in 76, LOSING the white vote, 48% to 52%.
> 
> 
> The narrative that the Myth of the Southern Strategy tells, is that the Evul Racist Whites of the South, betrayed by the dems, and pandered to by Evul Whites like Goldwater and Nixon, stopped voting dem and started voting republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> What we see instead is that 40 percent of whites in Alabama, one of the deepest and most reactionary states, were always voting republican, and that even after all the changes, that number only climbed, at most ten or twenty percent, depending on the candidates.
> 
> 
> Ronald REAGAN, only beat Jimmy freaking CARTER, by less than TWO percentage points, in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> Decades of supposed "Southern Strategy", moved the republican vote from 42% in 1962 to 48.7% in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> A shift of less than ten percent of the vote.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
Click to expand...


George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...

What do you call the that?  Midwest?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it is "my" math, as we are both speculating on what went on with Southern voters, but sure.
> 
> 
> So, lets take a look.
> 
> 1956, Ike republican vs stevenson dem,  the dem won 56.5% to 40%.
> 
> 1956 United States presidential election in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 1960, Kennedy won over Nixon, 56.4% to 42%.
> 
> 1964 Goldwater the republican won over the Dem, 69.4% vs 56.4%
> 
> 1968 WALLACE won the state with 65.9% vs, 19.7% for the dem, and 14% for Nixon.
> 
> 
> 1972 Nixon won it with 72.4% vs 25.5% for the dem.
> 
> 1976 CARTER won it, with 55.5% vs 42.6%.
> 
> 
> So, Jim Crow South, the dems allied with the racists of the South, had a solid hold on 60% vs about 40% of the vote for Republicans.
> 
> 
> Goldwater vs Johnson, in 64, it seems at least 30% crossed party lines.
> 
> 
> 68 looks like an odd outlier, with Wallace taking a huge majority, vs what we can assume were hard core dem and republican partisans of less than 20% for the dem and less than 15% for Nixon. Interestingly, this is AFTER you libs claim the Southern Strategy was in operation...
> 
> 
> in 72, Nixon won Alabama, 72% vs 25% for a very liberal North Eastern Dem.
> 
> 
> in 1976, again well after the Southern Strategy was supposed to be in operation, Jimmy CARTER, a strong Civil Rights Dem, won the State with a strong, 55 percent of the vote against 42, percent for Ford.
> 
> 
> Elections in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> This is interesting. It shows Carter in 76, LOSING the white vote, 48% to 52%.
> 
> 
> The narrative that the Myth of the Southern Strategy tells, is that the Evul Racist Whites of the South, betrayed by the dems, and pandered to by Evul Whites like Goldwater and Nixon, stopped voting dem and started voting republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> What we see instead is that 40 percent of whites in Alabama, one of the deepest and most reactionary states, were always voting republican, and that even after all the changes, that number only climbed, at most ten or twenty percent, depending on the candidates.
> 
> 
> Ronald REAGAN, only beat Jimmy freaking CARTER, by less than TWO percentage points, in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> Decades of supposed "Southern Strategy", moved the republican vote from 42% in 1962 to 48.7% in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> A shift of less than ten percent of the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
Click to expand...



I call it less than half. YOu claimed he won the South. How does less than half, equal "winning"? 


Were you lying or simply wrong?


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I call it less than half. YOu claimed he won the South. How does less than half, equal "winning"?
> 
> 
> Were you lying or simply wrong?
Click to expand...


You are going all goofy on me again
What are you claiming is the South.......South Dakota?


----------



## IM2

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> It's an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, no Republican said it; you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, most republicans just show it.....
> 
> Actions speak louder they always say.....
Click to expand...


These republicans love to lie. We see the obvious daily.


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I call it less than half. YOu claimed he won the South. How does less than half, equal "winning"?
> 
> 
> Were you lying or simply wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going all goofy on me again
> What are you claiming is the South.......South Dakota?
Click to expand...


LOL! He must have meant Brazil. After all that's South America.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is still slavery in northern Africa and throughout the Muslim world.
> 
> But we seem to be obsessed with slavery in America, which ended 157 years ago.
> 
> I guess it's kinda hard to blame Whitey for slavery in northern Africa and the Muslim world, though, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Obsessed with slavery?
> 
> What about those who are still obsessed with the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Harmless.  But you just make sure you don't acknowledge non-white, non-American slave owners.  You'll burst into flames.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would have been easier for you to say, "I'm an idiot, and I have no rational rebuttal."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not only would that be highly inaccurate.. This is much easier>>>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those who refuse to laugh at themselves.. shoot their own eye out.
Click to expand...

Damn, dood, you don't have to keep admitting you're an idiot.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit. Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic, but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
Click to expand...

The power dynamic is horseshit made up by people to let them excuse their own racism.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> It could be that since the civil rights act there just aren't that many black republicans. No wait, that would make to much sense. Ya you are right it is cause we are racists.
> 
> 
> 
> Not my fault the Republican can’t convince blacks and minorities that they are their best option.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually it has more to do with the democrats handing out FREE SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free shit?
> 
> Like that $1.5 trillion tax cut Trump gave to billionaires?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got a tax cut.  Everyone with a job did.
> 
> So it's understandable why you didn't get one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hell they did
> 
> Not if you were in a blue state. You had your SALT tax deduction capped and lost your personal exemption.
Click to expand...

Of course everyone got a Federal tax cut.

Blue states, however, like to fuck the working class, so of course they raised taxes.


----------



## daveman

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
Click to expand...


----------



## IM2

JustAGuy1 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor kid, everything you type screams victim hood". Everything is Whitey's fault to you. She is your exact opposite, she is intelligent, educated, well spoken and civil. You? Not so much.
Click to expand...


No, Owens is just a sellout that says what you desperately need to hear. I can say that white racism is the cause of our problem and I show why in the The Stone Cold Truth


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
Click to expand...


Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not my fault the Republican can’t convince blacks and minorities that they are their best option.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it has more to do with the democrats handing out FREE SHIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Free shit?
> 
> Like that $1.5 trillion tax cut Trump gave to billionaires?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got a tax cut.  Everyone with a job did.
> 
> So it's understandable why you didn't get one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hell they did
> 
> Not if you were in a blue state. You had your SALT tax deduction capped and lost your personal exemption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course everyone got a Federal tax cut.
> 
> Blue states, however, like to fuck the working class, so of course they raised taxes.
Click to expand...

It is called funding for schools, poverty programs, the elderly. 

The ones who got tax cuts were the ones who don’t do shit for their people


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
Click to expand...

Nope.  We call you racist because you are racist.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Purge said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we do have Candace
> ...you got the Mooooocher!!!ROTFLMFAO
> 
> 
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor kid, everything you type screams victim hood". Everything is Whitey's fault to you. She is your exact opposite, she is intelligent, educated, well spoken and civil. You? Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Owens is just a sellout that says what you desperately need to hear. I can say that white racism is the cause of our problem and I show why in the The Stone Cold Truth
Click to expand...

She is not even very original. 
You would think she could add some black perspective to being Republican.  Instead, she just mimics white hate speech


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it has more to do with the democrats handing out FREE SHIT.
> 
> 
> 
> Free shit?
> 
> Like that $1.5 trillion tax cut Trump gave to billionaires?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I got a tax cut.  Everyone with a job did.
> 
> So it's understandable why you didn't get one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hell they did
> 
> Not if you were in a blue state. You had your SALT tax deduction capped and lost your personal exemption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course everyone got a Federal tax cut.
> 
> Blue states, however, like to fuck the working class, so of course they raised taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called funding for schools, poverty programs, the elderly.
> 
> The ones who got tax cuts were the ones who don’t do shit for their people
Click to expand...

I'm sure that fantasy makes you feel better, but it's bullshit.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would not say that too loud to another black person.
> 
> You might get your feelings hurt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor kid, everything you type screams victim hood". Everything is Whitey's fault to you. She is your exact opposite, she is intelligent, educated, well spoken and civil. You? Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Owens is just a sellout that says what you desperately need to hear. I can say that white racism is the cause of our problem and I show why in the The Stone Cold Truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not even very original.
> You would think she could add some black perspective to being Republican.  Instead, she just mimics white hate speech
Click to expand...

I'm sure you'd know -- what's the female equivalent of "Uncle Tom"?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I call it less than half. YOu claimed he won the South. How does less than half, equal "winning"?
> 
> 
> Were you lying or simply wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going all goofy on me again
> What are you claiming is the South.......South Dakota?
Click to expand...




The South, you fucking moron. As defined by the United States Census.

Southern United States - Wikipedia









You claimed Wallace "won the South", in 1968.


Winning FIVE, out of THIRTEEN, is not "winning the south" as you claimed, you fucking moron.



It is insane to me, that you are too craven to admit to admit that you were just wrong. Do you really think I would make fun of you for not having the final results of the 1968 Presidential Election memorized? 


Or are you just, by reflex, always a fucking liar?


Seriously, there is something really, fucking wrong with you. AND you are an asshole.


My point stands. The South flipped because of a relatively small change in voting patterns. The republicans always had a strong minority of the votes in the South, and the Dems losing the support of the racists, seemed to only cost them a little, but enough support to change the South from one side to the other.

This does not support your narrative of the South, or America as inherently racist, and that is why you are being such a prick about every little detail, you fucking moron.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I call it less than half. YOu claimed he won the South. How does less than half, equal "winning"?
> 
> 
> Were you lying or simply wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are going all goofy on me again
> What are you claiming is the South.......South Dakota?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! He must have meant Brazil. After all that's South America.
Click to expand...




Said another math challenged moron.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
Click to expand...



No, when we say things, we generally actually mean them. We are pretty much the opposite of people like you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure why it is "my" math, as we are both speculating on what went on with Southern voters, but sure.
> 
> 
> So, lets take a look.
> 
> 1956, Ike republican vs stevenson dem,  the dem won 56.5% to 40%.
> 
> 1956 United States presidential election in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 1960, Kennedy won over Nixon, 56.4% to 42%.
> 
> 1964 Goldwater the republican won over the Dem, 69.4% vs 56.4%
> 
> 1968 WALLACE won the state with 65.9% vs, 19.7% for the dem, and 14% for Nixon.
> 
> 
> 1972 Nixon won it with 72.4% vs 25.5% for the dem.
> 
> 1976 CARTER won it, with 55.5% vs 42.6%.
> 
> 
> So, Jim Crow South, the dems allied with the racists of the South, had a solid hold on 60% vs about 40% of the vote for Republicans.
> 
> 
> Goldwater vs Johnson, in 64, it seems at least 30% crossed party lines.
> 
> 
> 68 looks like an odd outlier, with Wallace taking a huge majority, vs what we can assume were hard core dem and republican partisans of less than 20% for the dem and less than 15% for Nixon. Interestingly, this is AFTER you libs claim the Southern Strategy was in operation...
> 
> 
> in 72, Nixon won Alabama, 72% vs 25% for a very liberal North Eastern Dem.
> 
> 
> in 1976, again well after the Southern Strategy was supposed to be in operation, Jimmy CARTER, a strong Civil Rights Dem, won the State with a strong, 55 percent of the vote against 42, percent for Ford.
> 
> 
> Elections in Alabama - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> This is interesting. It shows Carter in 76, LOSING the white vote, 48% to 52%.
> 
> 
> The narrative that the Myth of the Southern Strategy tells, is that the Evul Racist Whites of the South, betrayed by the dems, and pandered to by Evul Whites like Goldwater and Nixon, stopped voting dem and started voting republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> What we see instead is that 40 percent of whites in Alabama, one of the deepest and most reactionary states, were always voting republican, and that even after all the changes, that number only climbed, at most ten or twenty percent, depending on the candidates.
> 
> 
> Ronald REAGAN, only beat Jimmy freaking CARTER, by less than TWO percentage points, in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> Decades of supposed "Southern Strategy", moved the republican vote from 42% in 1962 to 48.7% in 1980.
> 
> 
> 
> A shift of less than ten percent of the vote.
> 
> 
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
Click to expand...

There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.


----------



## JustAGuy1

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
Click to expand...


Well I am not a Republican but you are a Racist kid.


----------



## Correll

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 4 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
Click to expand...



Is he really this much of a fucking moron, or is he just playing a fucking asshole game?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Correll said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 4 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is he really this much of a fucking moron, or is he just playing a fucking asshole game?
Click to expand...

He is just IGNORANT, he claimed no blacks ran for the dem nomination. He probably supports Asslips claim that Wuhan Virus is not from China too. He always plays word games and lies through his teeth.


----------



## Correll

RetiredGySgt said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 4 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is he really this much of a fucking moron, or is he just playing a fucking asshole game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just IGNORANT, he claimed no blacks ran for the dem nomination. He probably supports Asslips claim that Wuhan Virus is not from China too. He always plays word games and lies through his teeth.
Click to expand...



Except that I linked to the US Census data, showing the south having 13 states, and he is not so stupid as to now understand that 5 is not 13, not even half of it. 


And he will admit nothing. He will play games to the end of time. He will be a complete asshole.


So, it is not just ignorance. He is ignorant and an incredible asshole.


----------



## Sun Devil 92

Correll said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 4 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is he really this much of a fucking moron, or is he just playing a fucking asshole game?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He is just IGNORANT, he claimed no blacks ran for the dem nomination. He probably supports Asslips claim that Wuhan Virus is not from China too. He always plays word games and lies through his teeth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that I linked to the US Census data, showing the south having 13 states, and he is not so stupid as to now understand that 5 is not 13, not even half of it.
> 
> 
> And he will admit nothing. He will play games to the end of time. He will be a complete asshole.
> 
> 
> So, it is not just ignorance. He is ignorant and an incredible asshole.
Click to expand...


Only on her good days.


----------



## rightwinger

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Free shit?
> 
> Like that $1.5 trillion tax cut Trump gave to billionaires?
> 
> 
> 
> I got a tax cut.  Everyone with a job did.
> 
> So it's understandable why you didn't get one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The hell they did
> 
> Not if you were in a blue state. You had your SALT tax deduction capped and lost your personal exemption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course everyone got a Federal tax cut.
> 
> Blue states, however, like to fuck the working class, so of course they raised taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called funding for schools, poverty programs, the elderly.
> 
> The ones who got tax cuts were the ones who don’t do shit for their people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure that fantasy makes you feel better, but it's bullshit.
Click to expand...

That is the reality of the Trump tax cuts 
They were punitive towards those who didn’t vote for Trump


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, let’s look where the Southern vote went after passing the Civil Rights Act in 1964.
> 
> 1964. Republican Goldwater beat Southern Democrat LBJ
> 1968. The South supported rabid segregationist George Wallace
> 1972. South Supported Republican Nixon
> 1976. South Supported Democrat Carter
> 1980. South Supported Republican Reagan.
> 
> So, with the exception of 1976, when it supported fellow southerner Jimmy Carter.....The South went Red
> 
> More importantly to the Southern Strategy, was 1964 marked the point when the South started to vote for Republican Governor’s, Senators and Congressmen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
Click to expand...

Name them


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name them
Click to expand...

Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, not sure what they consider the 13th State. But of those 12, 11 were in the Confederacy, which if you were an American you would know from History class in Grade school.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of a black Republican President is laughable
> 
> 
> 
> It's an oxymoron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember, no Republican said it; you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, most republicans just show it.....
> 
> Actions speak louder they always say.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> These republicans love to lie. We see the obvious daily.
Click to expand...


What lie did I tell?


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got a tax cut.  Everyone with a job did.
> 
> So it's understandable why you didn't get one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The hell they did
> 
> Not if you were in a blue state. You had your SALT tax deduction capped and lost your personal exemption.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course everyone got a Federal tax cut.
> 
> Blue states, however, like to fuck the working class, so of course they raised taxes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is called funding for schools, poverty programs, the elderly.
> 
> The ones who got tax cuts were the ones who don’t do shit for their people
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure that fantasy makes you feel better, but it's bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is the reality of the Trump tax cuts
> They were punitive towards those who didn’t vote for Trump
Click to expand...

You project the left's use of government to punish dissenters on to the right.

You project a lot.  As much as you disagree with what the left does, one wonders why you're still a leftist.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
Click to expand...


I call you racist because you are. And no, I don't call you racist for pointing out white racism. It goes much deeper than that. You are racist for assuming I concocted my story on no basis whatsoever other than that I am white. 

I told you some time back that I would never let you forget that you summarily judged me a liar without cause and I meant it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

He is a racist because he hates whites he demonizes them he belittles them and he is prejudice against them, just like Ascelepios is.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Such victims. Let's have a pity party..


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Grumblenuts said:


> Such victims. Let's have a pity party..


We all know you are an idiot, keep on proving it............


----------



## rightwinger

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, not sure what they consider the 13th State. But of those 12, 11 were in the Confederacy, which if you were an American you would know from History class in Grade school.
Click to expand...

Winner, winner Chicken Dinner

Which proves the point that the Republican Southern Strategy worked

By 1968, four years after passing of the Civil Rights Bill

Segregationist George Wallace won: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas

Republican Nixon won: Virginia, N Carolina, S Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky

Democrat Humphrey: Texas

Up till passing the Civil Rights Act, Democrats won them all for a hundred years


----------



## BuckToothMoron

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....




OMG! It all fits together. Obama gave all the poor people the Obama phone. Trump says fuck it, I’ll give them all cash money. That son of a bitch knows how to promote better than PT Barnum.

Donald Trump wants checks for Americans IMMEDIATELY | Daily Mail Online
*Trump wants IMMEDIATE cash handouts for Americans: Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says everyone will get MORE THAN $1,000 within two weeks once he strikes Senate deal - and tax payments are deferred for 90 days too*


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> He is a racist because he hates whites he demonizes them he belittles them and he is prejudice against them, just like Ascelepios is.



Wrong. What happens here is racist whites get called out for their racism and racists like yourself start whining about somebody being a racist for doing it. 

*SO UNLESS YOU'RE TELLING US ALL WHTES ARE RACISTS, THEN WE ARE NOT HATING, DEMIONIZING, BELITTLING, OR ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST ALL WHITES.*


----------



## IM2

JustAGuy1 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not a Republican but you are a Racist kid.
Click to expand...


Nah, I am not a racist. I'm just not the black person that's going to shut up and take the racism coming from whites like you.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit. Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic, but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is horseshit made up by people to let them excuse their own racism.
Click to expand...


Only according to white racists. And Ghost rider is still crying because I applied EEOC standards to his story about racism he said he faced on a job after he went and told a supervisor on a black employee. He narced on a black employee and the black employee got mad and spit on him. Now given the circumstances, without the black employee making any racial comment before he spit on ghost rider, there can be no determination that race had anything to do with the situation according to EEOC guidelines. Ghost needed to have documented examples of his racist behavior in order to prove this. This is the standard. You just don't get to run up and claim that somebody was being racist to you without evidence.

I know whites like most of you racists think that all a person has to do is holler racism and that's proof, but all claims of racism must be supported by documented evidence. Every claim a person of color makes in this regard has such documentation. So whites must follow the same rules.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  We call you racist because you are racist.
Click to expand...


Nah, you call me a racist because I refuse to just take your racism and be quiet. So you call me a racist thinking that's going to make me feel bad and then I'll shut up. But that won't work as long as you guys continue posting your racism.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Cause you Black Folk are badasses?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You poor kid, everything you type screams victim hood". Everything is Whitey's fault to you. She is your exact opposite, she is intelligent, educated, well spoken and civil. You? Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Owens is just a sellout that says what you desperately need to hear. I can say that white racism is the cause of our problem and I show why in the The Stone Cold Truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not even very original.
> You would think she could add some black perspective to being Republican.  Instead, she just mimics white hate speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you'd know -- what's the female equivalent of "Uncle Tom"?
Click to expand...


Uncle Tom.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a racist because he hates whites he demonizes them he belittles them and he is prejudice against them, just like Ascelepios is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. What happens here is racist whites get called out for their racism and racists like yourself start whining about somebody being a racist for doing it.
> 
> *SO UNLESS YOU'RE TELLING US ALL WHTES ARE RACISTS, THEN WE ARE NOT HATING, DEMIONIZING, BELITTLING, OR ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST ALL WHITES.*
Click to expand...

Except you accuse ANYONE that is white that disagrees with you as being racist. And any black that disagrees with you as an uncle tom. You are a racist. By the way I am not. I have black family members.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> He is a racist because he hates whites he demonizes them he belittles them and he is prejudice against them, just like Ascelepios is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. What happens here is racist whites get called out for their racism and racists like yourself start whining about somebody being a racist for doing it.
> 
> *SO UNLESS YOU'RE TELLING US ALL WHTES ARE RACISTS, THEN WE ARE NOT HATING, DEMIONIZING, BELITTLING, OR ARE PREJUDICED AGAINST ALL WHITES.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except you accuse ANYONE that is white that disagrees with you as being racist. And any black that disagrees with you as an uncle tom. You are a racist. By the way I am not. I have black family members.
Click to expand...


LOL! I accuse whites who make racist comments racist. It's not about disagreeing. The problem you have with your disagreements are you disagree with documented historical facts, legal cases, public policy, studies showing the effects of public policy and in your case, you are here trying to argue with blacks who were alive to see the  final move of blacks out of the republican party and who saw why we left. You are still trying to explain to us why we left according to you, when that's not why we left, we know it and we explained it to your white ass. Every racist here at USMB has black family members to hear them tell it. If you had black family members you'd know why blacks have left the republican party and why the majority of blacks refuse to vote republican today.

Blacks that repeat white racist beliefs are doing harm to all black people. While you agree with  their bullshit and think its great, they create the incentive for police officers to over incarcerate us, stop and harass us for no reason, kill unarmed blacks, create laws such as stand your ground so a white person can shoot a black person dead on an assumption, as well as whites who call the police if they see a black person walking down the street. They allow racist policy to continue so they are sellouts and uncle toms by the very definition.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Some amount of racism appears to be inherent, natural, and fairly harmless. The rest does measurable harm. That's the only part we need to focus upon and rid ourselves of. And by "we" I mean us white people. Blacks don't owe us shit. They gave at the office.


----------



## rightwinger

BuckToothMoron said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG! It all fits together. Obama gave all the poor people the Obama phone. Trump says fuck it, I’ll give them all cash money. That son of a bitch knows how to promote better than PT Barnum.
> 
> Donald Trump wants checks for Americans IMMEDIATELY | Daily Mail Online
> *Trump wants IMMEDIATE cash handouts for Americans: Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin says everyone will get MORE THAN $1,000 within two weeks once he strikes Senate deal - and tax payments are deferred for 90 days too*
Click to expand...

$1000 cash for everyone is just a gimmick to get votes. Most people are still working now, many are well off. 

I’d rather take the same amount of money and give $10,000 to those who are out of work, give money to small businesses that were forced to shut down.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 1968, the "south" did not support George Wallace. He did not even win half of the Southern States. Why you lie?
> 
> 2. You challenged me to "show my math" on how big or little the shift was. I have done so, it was less than ten percent. Your narrative of a massive backlash being the only story in the South, is just false.
> 
> 
> 3. ESPECIALLY in light of what we know happened to George Wallace and his career.
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name them
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

RetiredGySgt said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT States do you think George Wallace won?
> New England?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, not sure what they consider the 13th State. But of those 12, 11 were in the Confederacy, which if you were an American you would know from History class in Grade school.
Click to expand...



West Virginia.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> The power dynamic is implicit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call you racist because you are. And no, I don't call you racist for pointing out white racism. It goes much deeper than that. You are racist for assuming I concocted my story on no basis whatsoever other than that I am white.
> 
> I told you some time back that I would never let you forget that you summarily judged me a liar without cause and I meant it.
Click to expand...



IM2 is not used to people actually paying attention to what he says. Most of his friends or work associates, just let him get away with saying moronic shit and pretend it makes sense.


I keep pointing out to him, that letting him get away with saying moronic shit and pretending that it makes sense, is actually a sign of complete contempt. They are treating him like he is a retard. "Good IM2, you made a sentence, and errr, we AGREE WITH YOU, YES WE DO. Here, have a cookie".


While people like me and you, that point out that what he said, was fucking moronic, we are actually holding him to adult human standards. 


And thus, the only people showing him ANY respect.


Have you seen him pretend to not understand proportions? It is very, very sad.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call you racist because you are. And no, I don't call you racist for pointing out white racism. It goes much deeper than that. You are racist for assuming I concocted my story on no basis whatsoever other than that I am white.
> 
> I told you some time back that I would never let you forget that you summarily judged me a liar without cause and I meant it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 is not used to people actually paying attention to what he says. Most of his friends or work associates, just let him get away with saying moronic shit and pretend it makes sense.
> 
> 
> I keep pointing out to him, that letting him get away with saying moronic shit and pretending that it makes sense, is actually a sign of complete contempt. They are treating him like he is a retard. "Good IM2, you made a sentence, and errr, we AGREE WITH YOU, YES WE DO. Here, have a cookie".
> 
> 
> While people like me and you, that point out that what he said, was fucking moronic, we are actually holding him to adult human standards.
> 
> 
> And thus, the only people showing him ANY respect.
> 
> 
> Have you seen him pretend to not understand proportions? It is very, very sad.
Click to expand...

Simply smearing people is not saying anything. Certainly not being an adult.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know he did not win all or even the majority of the South, like you falsely claimed, in your constant attempt to smear The South.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you lying or just wrong?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, not sure what they consider the 13th State. But of those 12, 11 were in the Confederacy, which if you were an American you would know from History class in Grade school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winner, winner Chicken Dinner
> 
> Which proves the point that the Republican Southern Strategy worked
> 
> By 1968, four years after passing of the Civil Rights Bill
> 
> Segregationist George Wallace won: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas
> 
> Republican Nixon won: Virginia, N Carolina, S Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky
> 
> Democrat Humphrey: Texas
> 
> Up till passing the Civil Rights Act, Democrats won them all for a hundred years
Click to expand...




Before you move on to your next stupid claim, what happened to your claim that Wallace won the South?


Are you admitting that it was wrong? Can you admit, that you did not have the results of the 1968 national election memorized?


I will go first. I did not, and still do not have them memorized. I had to look it up. Oh, my god, how embarrassing. NOT.



So, now you. Can you show any sign of having a soul, or are you only a partisan hack bot?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I am not a Republican but you are a Racist kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, I am not a racist. I'm just not the black person that's going to shut up and take the racism coming from whites like you.
Click to expand...



You suck it up, like a crack whore, every time you say something mind boggling stupid, and your lib allies pretend it makes sense and you accept that pretense from them.



They are being racist to your face, and you are thanking them for it. Rewarding them with your support, and by encouraging other blacks to do the same.



Where does your best white friend send his kids to school? Public or private?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call you racist because you are. And no, I don't call you racist for pointing out white racism. It goes much deeper than that. You are racist for assuming I concocted my story on no basis whatsoever other than that I am white.
> 
> I told you some time back that I would never let you forget that you summarily judged me a liar without cause and I meant it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 is not used to people actually paying attention to what he says. Most of his friends or work associates, just let him get away with saying moronic shit and pretend it makes sense.
> 
> 
> I keep pointing out to him, that letting him get away with saying moronic shit and pretending that it makes sense, is actually a sign of complete contempt. They are treating him like he is a retard. "Good IM2, you made a sentence, and errr, we AGREE WITH YOU, YES WE DO. Here, have a cookie".
> 
> 
> While people like me and you, that point out that what he said, was fucking moronic, we are actually holding him to adult human standards.
> 
> 
> And thus, the only people showing him ANY respect.
> 
> 
> Have you seen him pretend to not understand proportions? It is very, very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply smearing people is not saying anything. Certainly not being an adult.
Click to expand...



Correct. 

So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist? Cause that was the point that Ghost was arguing against, when the lefties including IM2 starting attacking Ghost for. 


Ghost made the point that blacks can be racist. His case is undeniable. Of course that does not stop liberals from denying it, they just can't explain or support their denial, so they attack personally.


IM2, is racist. Anyone that reads his posting, will realize that very short order.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Wallace won Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas...
> 
> What do you call the that?  Midwest?
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, not sure what they consider the 13th State. But of those 12, 11 were in the Confederacy, which if you were an American you would know from History class in Grade school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winner, winner Chicken Dinner
> 
> Which proves the point that the Republican Southern Strategy worked
> 
> By 1968, four years after passing of the Civil Rights Bill
> 
> Segregationist George Wallace won: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas
> 
> Republican Nixon won: Virginia, N Carolina, S Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky
> 
> Democrat Humphrey: Texas
> 
> Up till passing the Civil Rights Act, Democrats won them all for a hundred years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you move on to your next stupid claim, what happened to your claim that Wallace won the South?
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that it was wrong? Can you admit, that you did not have the results of the 1968 national election memorized?
> 
> 
> I will go first. I did not, and still do not have them memorized. I had to look it up. Oh, my god, how embarrassing. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you. Can you show any sign of having a soul, or are you only a partisan hack bot?
Click to expand...

LOL

What happened to your claim that the Southern Strategy didn’t happen?  Wallace won the Deep South. Any state he didn’t win was won by Republican Nixon
Dems won ONE state in a region that before the Civil Rights act they used to win EVERY


----------



## Grumblenuts

> When *George Wallace ran* for President in 1968, it was not as a Democrat – which he had done in the 1964 Democratic primaries and would again in the 1972 Democratic primaries – but *as a candidate of the American Independent Party.* The American Independent Party was formed by Wallace,[1] whose pro-segregation policies as governor had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. In 1968 he ran on the idea that *"there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties"*.


Black Republican Presidential nominees anyone?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are a lot more then 5 States in the South that is not even a majority of the old Confederate States.
> 
> 
> 
> Name them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, not sure what they consider the 13th State. But of those 12, 11 were in the Confederacy, which if you were an American you would know from History class in Grade school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winner, winner Chicken Dinner
> 
> Which proves the point that the Republican Southern Strategy worked
> 
> By 1968, four years after passing of the Civil Rights Bill
> 
> Segregationist George Wallace won: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas
> 
> Republican Nixon won: Virginia, N Carolina, S Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky
> 
> Democrat Humphrey: Texas
> 
> Up till passing the Civil Rights Act, Democrats won them all for a hundred years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you move on to your next stupid claim, what happened to your claim that Wallace won the South?
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that it was wrong? Can you admit, that you did not have the results of the 1968 national election memorized?
> 
> 
> I will go first. I did not, and still do not have them memorized. I had to look it up. Oh, my god, how embarrassing. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you. Can you show any sign of having a soul, or are you only a partisan hack bot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What happened to your claim that the Southern Strategy didn’t happen?  Wallace won the Deep South. Any state he didn’t win was won by Republican Nixon
> Dems won ONE state in a region that before the Civil Rights act they used to win EVERY
Click to expand...



Nothing happened to it. I am and will continue to discuss it.


I'm just taking a few seconds here to point out that you cannot admit that you did not have the 1968 election results memorized and were wrong when you claimed that Wallace "won the SOuth".


That reveals that nothing you say, ever, should be given any credibility. Because  you are unable to be honest on even the smallest of details.


This mistake you made, was TINY. 


And meant NOTHING. It did not reflect badly on you as a person, nor did not even undermine your argument. 


Yet, you cannot admit it.


YOu are a completely dishonest person, totally consumed by partisan zealotry and ideological fanaticism.


And in this,  you are completely representative of the liberal mainstream in this country.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> When *George Wallace ran* for President in 1968, it was not as a Democrat – which he had done in the 1964 Democratic primaries and would again in the 1972 Democratic primaries – but *as a candidate of the American Independent Party.* The American Independent Party was formed by Wallace,[1] whose pro-segregation policies as governor had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. In 1968 he ran on the idea that *"there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties"*.
> 
> 
> 
> Black Republican Presidential nominees anyone?
Click to expand...



None have yet won the Primaries. YOu libs seem to think that proves something. But can't seem to explain why.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?


I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When *George Wallace ran* for President in 1968, it was not as a Democrat – which he had done in the 1964 Democratic primaries and would again in the 1972 Democratic primaries – but *as a candidate of the American Independent Party.* The American Independent Party was formed by Wallace,[1] whose pro-segregation policies as governor had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. In 1968 he ran on the idea that *"there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties"*.
> 
> 
> 
> Black Republican Presidential nominees anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None have yet won the Primaries. YOu libs seem to think that proves something. But can't seem to explain why.
Click to expand...

Why Republicans so rarely elect black people compared to Democrats? Seems Republicans don't actually like them as much.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
Click to expand...


I don't agree with that. Why? Because whites like correll make this claim in order to deny their racism or come fort with some sorry ass false  equivalence. The fact is that what people like him call black racism is the response to the racism we are forced to face from whites. I will say that blacks can be prejudiced, but when it comes to racism we cannot get our prejudices enforced by the implementation of law and public or private policy. Whites have consistently done that.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit. Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic, but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is horseshit made up by people to let them excuse their own racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only according to white racists. And Ghost rider is still crying because I applied EEOC standards to his story about racism he said he faced on a job after he went and told a supervisor on a black employee. He narced on a black employee and the black employee got mad and spit on him. Now given the circumstances, without the black employee making any racial comment before he spit on ghost rider, there can be no determination that race had anything to do with the situation according to EEOC guidelines. Ghost needed to have documented examples of his racist behavior in order to prove this. This is the standard. You just don't get to run up and claim that somebody was being racist to you without evidence.
Click to expand...


This is the same problem I had with you before. This is completely opposite and wrong from what happened and what I told you, you stupid fuck. 

I didn't "narc" on anybody. The guy was giving me problems because he thought I was singling him and the other black crewmember out for asking them to COMPLY WITH COMPANY SAFETY PROCEDURES and (In his particular case) wear gloves for the job he was doing. I asked our immediate supervisor to come and mediate a discussion and maybe help us work it out. It became obvious during this discussion that he was not interested in working it out and that he had his mind made up that I was singling them out so we just left it at that.

I simply resigned myself to the fact that it would be a tense work atmosphere from that day forward as he hadn't done anything up to this point to merit having him fired or removed from the vessel. However, in the company truck going to the office and home at the end of the hitch a week later (I was driving), he turned to me, said "This is what I think of you" and spit on me. 

The man was fired for committing assault on another employee, that's it. Racism was never brought up by myself, him, the supervisor or the office. It was merely the conclusion I arrived at as to why he behaved as he did.

But the story itself was not the point. The point is, you accused me of concocting the story at the outset, i.e., you accused me of lying on no basis or evidence whatsoever. You didn't know me well enough at that point to make that determination and had no way of knowing I made it up in any case. It wasn't until later in the discussion that you tacitly acknowledged that it actually happened and started citing EEOC bullshit which was irrelevant and didn't apply in this case. So the only conclusion I could come to as to why you thought I lied is because I'm white.



> I know whites like most of you racists think that all a person has to do is holler racism and that's proof, but all claims of racism must be supported by documented evidence. Every claim a person of color makes in this regard has such documentation. So whites must follow the same rules.



There won't be documented incidents of racism if this was the first offense you idiot.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call you racist because you are. And no, I don't call you racist for pointing out white racism. It goes much deeper than that. You are racist for assuming I concocted my story on no basis whatsoever other than that I am white.
> 
> I told you some time back that I would never let you forget that you summarily judged me a liar without cause and I meant it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 is not used to people actually paying attention to what he says. Most of his friends or work associates, just let him get away with saying moronic shit and pretend it makes sense.
> 
> 
> I keep pointing out to him, that letting him get away with saying moronic shit and pretending that it makes sense, is actually a sign of complete contempt. They are treating him like he is a retard. "Good IM2, you made a sentence, and errr, we AGREE WITH YOU, YES WE DO. Here, have a cookie".
> 
> 
> While people like me and you, that point out that what he said, was fucking moronic, we are actually holding him to adult human standards.
> 
> 
> And thus, the only people showing him ANY respect.
> 
> 
> Have you seen him pretend to not understand proportions? It is very, very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply smearing people is not saying anything. Certainly not being an adult.
Click to expand...


Corell, I have made city governments listen. I understand proportion very well. Seems that you don't understand TOTAL REAL NUMBERS.

Ghost, I don't give a fuck what you  mean. You were held to workplace standards in regards to filing a claim of racism. You could not produce a comment stated by the black guy that showed evidence of his racism. Whites spit on each other and blacks spit on each other so that alone  does not constitute racism. If he had made some kind of racist statement or a racial slur, then it would. And yes I called your white ass a liar because in this forum whites whine all the time about being victims of racism just because somebody black looks at them harshly.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name them
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, not sure what they consider the 13th State. But of those 12, 11 were in the Confederacy, which if you were an American you would know from History class in Grade school.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Winner, winner Chicken Dinner
> 
> Which proves the point that the Republican Southern Strategy worked
> 
> By 1968, four years after passing of the Civil Rights Bill
> 
> Segregationist George Wallace won: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas
> 
> Republican Nixon won: Virginia, N Carolina, S Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky
> 
> Democrat Humphrey: Texas
> 
> Up till passing the Civil Rights Act, Democrats won them all for a hundred years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you move on to your next stupid claim, what happened to your claim that Wallace won the South?
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that it was wrong? Can you admit, that you did not have the results of the 1968 national election memorized?
> 
> 
> I will go first. I did not, and still do not have them memorized. I had to look it up. Oh, my god, how embarrassing. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you. Can you show any sign of having a soul, or are you only a partisan hack bot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What happened to your claim that the Southern Strategy didn’t happen?  Wallace won the Deep South. Any state he didn’t win was won by Republican Nixon
> Dems won ONE state in a region that before the Civil Rights act they used to win EVERY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happened to it. I am and will continue to discuss it.
> 
> 
> I'm just taking a few seconds here to point out that you cannot admit that you did not have the 1968 election results memorized and were wrong when you claimed that Wallace "won the SOuth".
> 
> 
> That reveals that nothing you say, ever, should be given any credibility. Because  you are unable to be honest on even the smallest of details.
> 
> 
> This mistake you made, was TINY.
> 
> 
> And meant NOTHING. It did not reflect badly on you as a person, nor did not even undermine your argument.
> 
> 
> Yet, you cannot admit it.
> 
> 
> YOu are a completely dishonest person, totally consumed by partisan zealotry and ideological fanaticism.
> 
> 
> And in this,  you are completely representative of the liberal mainstream in this country.
Click to expand...

Wallace won the SOUTH
Those states that had the worst  Civil Rights record. The states where Federal Troops had to be called in

Republican Nixon still took the others

Once again, you lose


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that. Why? Because whites like correll make this claim in order to deny their racism or come fort with some sorry ass false  equivalence. The fact is that what people like him call black racism is the response to the racism we are forced to face from whites. I will say that blacks can be prejudiced, but when it comes to racism we cannot get our prejudices enforced by the implementation of law and public or private policy. Whites have consistently done that.
Click to expand...

Understood and I think we actually agree. I was responding in the abstract alone. Hypothetically. To the question not the questioner. In the context of the entire Earth and throughout history, not just in the U.S. currently. Yes, I don't think a white person could currently make a legitimate case for black on white harm due to race here. Easy to cite examples of the opposite occurring almost daily.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...

And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..

It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
Click to expand...



1. Thank you for admitting the obvious. What do you think it means that people like IM2 can openly argue the absurd claim that it is not, and expect to be taken seriously?

2. Not in my lifetime. In my life time, the federal government, state governments, local governments, large corporations, large institutions, media, hollywood, vast portions of the population, have all been rabidly anti-racist and committed to pro-black discrimination.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When *George Wallace ran* for President in 1968, it was not as a Democrat – which he had done in the 1964 Democratic primaries and would again in the 1972 Democratic primaries – but *as a candidate of the American Independent Party.* The American Independent Party was formed by Wallace,[1] whose pro-segregation policies as governor had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. In 1968 he ran on the idea that *"there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties"*.
> 
> 
> 
> Black Republican Presidential nominees anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None have yet won the Primaries. YOu libs seem to think that proves something. But can't seem to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Republicans so rarely elect black people compared to Democrats? Seems Republicans don't actually like them as much.
Click to expand...



Hard to elect people that are in the other party. I mean, that is pretty obvious. How did you miss that?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting the obvious. What do you think it means that people like IM2 can openly argue the absurd claim that it is not, and expect to be taken seriously?
> 
> 2. Not in my lifetime. In my life time, the federal government, state governments, local governments, large corporations, large institutions, media, hollywood, vast portions of the population, have all been rabidly anti-racist and committed to pro-black discrimination.
Click to expand...

To your delusional closeted racist ass -- being anti racist is in and of itself evidence of being racist against whites...



You dic suckers have always thought one group gaining equal rights protections meant white folks are losing rights ...fuck you and your inadequacies


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that. Why? Because whites like correll make this claim in order to deny their racism or come fort with some sorry ass false  equivalence. The fact is that what people like him call black racism is the response to the racism we are forced to face from whites. I will say that blacks can be prejudiced, but when it comes to racism we cannot get our prejudices enforced by the implementation of law and public or private policy. Whites have consistently done that.
Click to expand...



Grumblenuts read your posts, where you claimed it was not possible for blacks to be racist.


He disagreed. But he did not challenge you on it. 


Because as a white liberal, he doesn't hold you to the same standards, he does me, a white conservative.


YOu get a pass for saying obviously wrong shit. 


Why do you think that is?


You should ask Grumblenuts where he sends HIS kids, private or public schools.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Public.


----------



## IM2

Correll continues whining about non existent pro black racism.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts read your posts, where you claimed it was not possible for blacks to be racist.
> 
> 
> He disagreed. But he did not challenge you on it.


Context lacking. A liberal has empathy where a conservative remains fixated upon their own navel.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Tennessee, Kentucky, not sure what they consider the 13th State. But of those 12, 11 were in the Confederacy, which if you were an American you would know from History class in Grade school.
> 
> 
> 
> Winner, winner Chicken Dinner
> 
> Which proves the point that the Republican Southern Strategy worked
> 
> By 1968, four years after passing of the Civil Rights Bill
> 
> Segregationist George Wallace won: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas
> 
> Republican Nixon won: Virginia, N Carolina, S Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky
> 
> Democrat Humphrey: Texas
> 
> Up till passing the Civil Rights Act, Democrats won them all for a hundred years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you move on to your next stupid claim, what happened to your claim that Wallace won the South?
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that it was wrong? Can you admit, that you did not have the results of the 1968 national election memorized?
> 
> 
> I will go first. I did not, and still do not have them memorized. I had to look it up. Oh, my god, how embarrassing. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you. Can you show any sign of having a soul, or are you only a partisan hack bot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What happened to your claim that the Southern Strategy didn’t happen?  Wallace won the Deep South. Any state he didn’t win was won by Republican Nixon
> Dems won ONE state in a region that before the Civil Rights act they used to win EVERY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happened to it. I am and will continue to discuss it.
> 
> 
> I'm just taking a few seconds here to point out that you cannot admit that you did not have the 1968 election results memorized and were wrong when you claimed that Wallace "won the SOuth".
> 
> 
> That reveals that nothing you say, ever, should be given any credibility. Because  you are unable to be honest on even the smallest of details.
> 
> 
> This mistake you made, was TINY.
> 
> 
> And meant NOTHING. It did not reflect badly on you as a person, nor did not even undermine your argument.
> 
> 
> Yet, you cannot admit it.
> 
> 
> YOu are a completely dishonest person, totally consumed by partisan zealotry and ideological fanaticism.
> 
> 
> And in this,  you are completely representative of the liberal mainstream in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wallace won the SOUTH
> Those states that had the worst  Civil Rights record. The states where Federal Troops had to be called in
> 
> Republican Nixon still took the others
> 
> Once again, you lose
Click to expand...



No, you just revealed yourself to be a complete partisan hack with zero honesty or credibility.


Over nothing.


Once the situation stabilized, the shift in voting was well under ten percent. The story you tell of the "Southern Strategy, of the evul racist whites switching sides, and making the South red, is just not true.


As you well know.


Especially as we have discussed the interesting career of George Wallace, post segregation.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that. Why? Because whites like correll make this claim in order to deny their racism or come fort with some sorry ass false  equivalence. The fact is that what people like him call black racism is the response to the racism we are forced to face from whites. I will say that blacks can be prejudiced, but when it comes to racism we cannot get our prejudices enforced by the implementation of law and public or private policy. Whites have consistently done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understood and I think we actually agree. I was responding in the abstract alone. Hypothetically. To the question not the questioner. In the context of the entire Earth and throughout history, not just in the U.S. currently. Yes, I don't think a white person could currently make a legitimate case for black on white harm due to race here. Easy to cite examples of the opposite occurring almost daily.
Click to expand...



IM2 will only respect your view, or even your right to have an opinion on this issue, as long as you agree with him.


ANY disagreement, and he will dismiss you as a white person who thus does not have the right to have their voice or interested considered.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts read your posts, where you claimed it was not possible for blacks to be racist.
> 
> 
> He disagreed. But he did not challenge you on it.
> 
> 
> 
> Context lacking. A liberal has empathy where a conservative remains fixated upon their own navel.
Click to expand...



Allowing a black lefty to misrepresent the definition of racism, to give a pass to all black racists for their racism, 


is not "empathy".



It is you allying with some very unpleasant people. 



You are accepting racism and racists as political allies.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I call you racist because you are. And no, I don't call you racist for pointing out white racism. It goes much deeper than that. You are racist for assuming I concocted my story on no basis whatsoever other than that I am white.
> 
> I told you some time back that I would never let you forget that you summarily judged me a liar without cause and I meant it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 is not used to people actually paying attention to what he says. Most of his friends or work associates, just let him get away with saying moronic shit and pretend it makes sense.
> 
> 
> I keep pointing out to him, that letting him get away with saying moronic shit and pretending that it makes sense, is actually a sign of complete contempt. They are treating him like he is a retard. "Good IM2, you made a sentence, and errr, we AGREE WITH YOU, YES WE DO. Here, have a cookie".
> 
> 
> While people like me and you, that point out that what he said, was fucking moronic, we are actually holding him to adult human standards.
> 
> 
> And thus, the only people showing him ANY respect.
> 
> 
> Have you seen him pretend to not understand proportions? It is very, very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply smearing people is not saying anything. Certainly not being an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corell, I have made city governments listen. I understand proportion very well. Seems that you don't understand TOTAL REAL NUMBERS.
> 
> Ghost, I don't give a fuck what you  mean.
Click to expand...


Obviously. You don't give a fuck what _any_ white person says unless they're kowtowing to you and pandering to your racism.



> You were held to workplace standards in regards to filing a claim of racism.



I never filed a claim of racism and never said I did.



> You could not produce a comment stated by the black guy that showed evidence of his racism.



Why are specifically racist comments required to determine a black person is racist but the most innocuous actions by whites are enough to label them racist? Class, can you say "Double standards"?

Someone said earlier in this discussion that Republicans show their racism by their _actions_. Apparently, that is enough to get a white person labeled a racist and yet, even spitting on a white person is not enough to get a black person labeled a racist. Why?



> Whites spit on each other and blacks spit on each other so that alone  does not constitute racism. If he had made some kind of racist statement or a racial slur, then it would. And yes I called your white ass a liar because in this forum whites whine all the time about being victims of racism just because somebody black looks at them harshly.



First of all, I am not "whites on this forum", I am an individual with individual experiences and viewpoints. Second, I only ever related ONE story of black racism, which does not constitute "whining all the time". Third, if you thought I lied in the beginning, why did you change your mind? Apparently you came to the realization yourself that you were wrong about me concocting the story and then proceeded to argue with my conclusions. In other words, first you thought I lied and then later you argued that what I thought was black racism was not.

You're so full of shit it's leaking out of your ears.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...




Not at all. We are hoping that Trump get re-elected and then Pence gets another 8 years.


In that context, it is way to early, at least for me, to get excited about any possible NEXT candidates. 


And we won the war in 1965. It was you slavers that lost it.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When *George Wallace ran* for President in 1968, it was not as a Democrat – which he had done in the 1964 Democratic primaries and would again in the 1972 Democratic primaries – but *as a candidate of the American Independent Party.* The American Independent Party was formed by Wallace,[1] whose pro-segregation policies as governor had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. In 1968 he ran on the idea that *"there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties"*.
> 
> 
> 
> Black Republican Presidential nominees anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None have yet won the Primaries. YOu libs seem to think that proves something. But can't seem to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Republicans so rarely elect black people compared to Democrats? Seems Republicans don't actually like them as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to elect people that are in the other party. I mean, that is pretty obvious. How did you miss that?
Click to expand...

Cop out

Republicans claim they do so much for blacks and mock Democrats. 
Meanwhile, they don’t even have offices or campaign in black and minority  communities. 

If they have so much to offer, why can’t they win those areas?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> unpleasant people


LOL


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. We are hoping that Trump get re-elected and then Pence gets another 8 years.
> 
> 
> In that context, it is way to early, at least for me, to get excited about any possible NEXT candidates.
> 
> 
> And we won the war in 1965. It was you slavers that lost it.
Click to expand...

 Name a conservative who was marching along side of MLK and putting their life on the line in 1965?

The only people who consistently have to lie and twist themselves into knots to try to explain away the reality that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of equal rights are??? ---  you guessed it...conservatives...


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Thank you for admitting the obvious. What do you think it means that people like IM2 can openly argue the absurd claim that it is not, and expect to be taken seriously?
> 
> 2. Not in my lifetime. In my life time, the federal government, state governments, local governments, large corporations, large institutions, media, hollywood, vast portions of the population, have all been rabidly anti-racist and committed to pro-black discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To your delusional closeted racist ass -- being anti racist is in and of itself evidence of being racist against whites...
> 
> 
> 
> You dic suckers have always thought one group gaining equal rights protections meant white folks are losing rights ...fuck you and your inadequacies
Click to expand...



Nope. We republicans have been supportive of equal rights for generations, way back when dems were still cozying up to the Klan.


But what we have today, is anti-white discrimination. 


You know that, which is why you try to cover it up with bluster and vulgarity.


You are the one with the sense of "inadequacy", not US.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Public.




Rich neighbor hood? Rural area? Freaking 98% white New England school?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Racist, Rural, Relatively Rich, Republican neighborhood,... unfortunately!


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I call you racist because you are. And no, I don't call you racist for pointing out white racism. It goes much deeper than that. You are racist for assuming I concocted my story on no basis whatsoever other than that I am white.
> 
> I told you some time back that I would never let you forget that you summarily judged me a liar without cause and I meant it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 is not used to people actually paying attention to what he says. Most of his friends or work associates, just let him get away with saying moronic shit and pretend it makes sense.
> 
> 
> I keep pointing out to him, that letting him get away with saying moronic shit and pretending that it makes sense, is actually a sign of complete contempt. They are treating him like he is a retard. "Good IM2, you made a sentence, and errr, we AGREE WITH YOU, YES WE DO. Here, have a cookie".
> 
> 
> While people like me and you, that point out that what he said, was fucking moronic, we are actually holding him to adult human standards.
> 
> 
> And thus, the only people showing him ANY respect.
> 
> 
> Have you seen him pretend to not understand proportions? It is very, very sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply smearing people is not saying anything. Certainly not being an adult.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corell, I have made city governments listen. I understand proportion very well. Seems that you don't understand TOTAL REAL NUMBERS.
> 
> Ghost, I don't give a fuck what you  mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously. You don't give a fuck what _any_ white person says unless they're kowtowing to you and pandering to your racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You were held to workplace standards in regards to filing a claim of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I never filed a claim of racism and never said I did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You could not produce a comment stated by the black guy that showed evidence of his racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are specifically racist comments required to determine a black person is racist but the most innocuous actions by whites are enough to label them racist? Class, can you say "Double standards"?
> 
> Someone said earlier in this discussion that Republicans show their racism by their _actions_. Apparently, that is enough to get a white person labeled a racist and yet, even spitting on a white person is not enough to get a black person labeled a racist. Why?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whites spit on each other and blacks spit on each other so that alone  does not constitute racism. If he had made some kind of racist statement or a racial slur, then it would. And yes I called your white ass a liar because in this forum whites whine all the time about being victims of racism just because somebody black looks at them harshly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, I am not "whites on this forum", I am an individual with individual experiences and viewpoints. Second, I only ever related ONE story of black racism, which does not constitute "whining all the time". Third, if you thought I lied in the beginning, why did you change your mind? Apparently you came to the realization yourself that you were wrong about me concocting the story and then proceeded to argue with my conclusions. In other words, first you thought I lied and then later you argued that what I thought was black racism was not.
> 
> You're so full of shit it's leaking out of your ears.
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist


Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Racist, Rural, Relatively Rich, Republican neighborhood,... unfortunately!




The issue of segregation came up recently between IM2 and myself. I challenged him to ask his white lib friends where they send their kids to school, private or public.


He pretended to misunderstand the question at first. And then refused, for reasons, which were so weak that I don't recall them.


My child goes to an urban public school. It has what I can only call a "fascist" Principle, who manages to keep the shit at bay, enough that the school numbers made it a better choice than the local private schools.


Are you aware of the amusing practice of white libs avoiding public schools and thus supporting segregation?


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When *George Wallace ran* for President in 1968, it was not as a Democrat – which he had done in the 1964 Democratic primaries and would again in the 1972 Democratic primaries – but *as a candidate of the American Independent Party.* The American Independent Party was formed by Wallace,[1] whose pro-segregation policies as governor had been rejected by the mainstream of the Democratic Party. In 1968 he ran on the idea that *"there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two major parties"*.
> 
> 
> 
> Black Republican Presidential nominees anyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> None have yet won the Primaries. YOu libs seem to think that proves something. But can't seem to explain why.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why Republicans so rarely elect black people compared to Democrats? Seems Republicans don't actually like them as much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hard to elect people that are in the other party. I mean, that is pretty obvious. How did you miss that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Cop out
> 
> Republicans claim they do so much for blacks and mock Democrats.
> Meanwhile, they don’t even have offices or campaign in black and minority  communities.
> 
> If they have so much to offer, why can’t they win those areas?
Click to expand...



A fair question, but one that does not make my previous point a "cop out".


Regardless of why the vast majority of blacks chose to be dems, they are dems which makes the potential pool of possible black candidates for the republicans much, much smaller.



That you deny that, is probably just about you being a completely dishonest person. 


And nothing to do with us republicans.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> unpleasant people
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
Click to expand...



You agree that blacks can be racists, and you are allying with a black that pretends that blacks cannot be racist.


DO you realize that IM2, is a hideous racist? Are you comfortable allaying with that?


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. We are hoping that Trump get re-elected and then Pence gets another 8 years.
> 
> 
> In that context, it is way to early, at least for me, to get excited about any possible NEXT candidates.
> 
> 
> And we won the war in 1965. It was you slavers that lost it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a conservative who was marching along side of MLK and putting their life on the line in 1965?
> 
> The only people who consistently have to lie and twist themselves into knots to try to explain away the reality that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of equal rights are??? ---  you guessed it...conservatives...
Click to expand...



While MLK was marching in the Streets, Republicans were in the Congress writing and passing Civil Rights bills.


Do you know who actually desegregated the Southern Schools?  I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with Mixon. 


That is the reality, that YOU LEFTIES twist yourselves into knots trying to explain away.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
Click to expand...

Democrats have always been against black flight


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Are you aware of the amusing practice of white libs avoiding public schools and thus supporting segregation?


Amusing compared to the record of white conservatives? No.


Correll said:


> You agree that blacks can be racists, and you are allying with a black that pretends that blacks cannot be racist.


You certainly run from nuance with a vengeance.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware of the amusing practice of white libs avoiding public schools and thus supporting segregation?
> 
> 
> 
> Amusing compared to the record of white conservatives? No.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You agree that blacks can be racists, and you are allying with a black that pretends that blacks cannot be racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You certainly run from nuance with a vengeance.
Click to expand...



1. Really? Are you operating under the belief system that the whites going to the private schools are the conservative whites, while the liberals are the ones staying in the public schools?

2. IM2, is not "nuanced".  He is a raving hate filled man, and you are siding with him. That is the clear and simple Truth. What "nuance" am I missing?


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
Click to expand...

And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> What "nuance" am I missing?


I was speaking hypothetically from a privileged, disinterested, third party perspective. IM2 speaks from the perspective of one who's experienced harmful racism. I don't blame him for showing negligible respect for my opinions on the subject. I know next to nothing by comparison.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
Click to expand...



As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections. 


What part of this doesn't make sense to you?


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
Click to expand...

Also as racism left it became more conservative and Republican, and progressive as many blacks built schools down here, almost all the blacks I went to school with moved to the south. Less racist


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "nuance" am I missing?
> 
> 
> 
> I was speaking hypothetically from a privileged, disinterested, third party perspective. IM2 speaks from the perspective of one who's experienced harmful racism. I don't blame him for showing negligible respect for my opinions on the subject. I know next to nothing by comparison.
Click to expand...



1. You have no privilege. 

2. You have an interest in the issue. You might think you don't, but someday, you or someone you care about will be bitten in the ass by this issue.

3. Race relations in this country are not just about the interests and concerns of minorities. Whites have rights and interests and we count too. It is racist of you to pretend otherwise.

4. YOur willing acceptance of the moral superiority of blacks, is racism.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Are you operating under the belief system that the whites going to the private schools are the conservative whites


Certainly not all, but ffs, here's a primer on the subject for you: Why the Right Hates Public Education - Rethinking Schools


----------



## Jitss617

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
Click to expand...

As a north went more Democrat with there cotton slave owning property, it became more racist,, All cries of racial oppression have only come from town run by DEMOCRATS


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you operating under the belief system that the whites going to the private schools are the conservative whites
> 
> 
> 
> Certainly not all, but ffs, here's a primer on the subject for you: Why the Right Hates Public Education - Rethinking Schools
Click to expand...




That opens with the statement that it was about "republican strategists'" thinking, not what republican parents are doing.


YOu know what, lets go looking for some actual hard data on the issue.


Ouch. That was some painful shit. This, is not so bad. for a start.


Why White Parents Resist School Integration - CityLab


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. We are hoping that Trump get re-elected and then Pence gets another 8 years.
> 
> 
> In that context, it is way to early, at least for me, to get excited about any possible NEXT candidates.
> 
> 
> And we won the war in 1965. It was you slavers that lost it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a conservative who was marching along side of MLK and putting their life on the line in 1965?
> 
> The only people who consistently have to lie and twist themselves into knots to try to explain away the reality that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of equal rights are??? ---  you guessed it...conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While MLK was marching in the Streets, Republicans were in the Congress writing and passing Civil Rights bills.
> 
> 
> Do you know who actually desegregated the Southern Schools?  I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with Mixon.
> 
> 
> That is the reality, that YOU LEFTIES twist yourselves into knots trying to explain away.
Click to expand...

I said conservatives you dic sucker

There is a reason you avoid answering my question and play the party labels game -- so to further illustrate my point I will ask it again...

Name me one prominent conservative who was down south marching along side of MLK? Was it Goldwater? Reagan? Ayn Rand?   The John Birch society


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. We are hoping that Trump get re-elected and then Pence gets another 8 years.
> 
> 
> In that context, it is way to early, at least for me, to get excited about any possible NEXT candidates.
> 
> 
> And we won the war in 1965. It was you slavers that lost it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a conservative who was marching along side of MLK and putting their life on the line in 1965?
> 
> The only people who consistently have to lie and twist themselves into knots to try to explain away the reality that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of equal rights are??? ---  you guessed it...conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While MLK was marching in the Streets, Republicans were in the Congress writing and passing Civil Rights bills.
> 
> 
> Do you know who actually desegregated the Southern Schools?  I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with Mixon.
> 
> 
> That is the reality, that YOU LEFTIES twist yourselves into knots trying to explain away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said conservatives you dic sucker
> 
> There is a reason you avoid answering my question and play the party labels game -- so to further illustrate my point I will ask it again...
> 
> Name me one prominent conservative who was down south marching along side of MLK? Was it Goldwater? Reagan? Ayn Rand?   John Birchsociety??
Click to expand...



I dont' know which if any conservatives were marching int he streets, but they were in congress and the federal government passing and enforcing those laws.


That was my point, and it stands.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. We are hoping that Trump get re-elected and then Pence gets another 8 years.
> 
> 
> In that context, it is way to early, at least for me, to get excited about any possible NEXT candidates.
> 
> 
> And we won the war in 1965. It was you slavers that lost it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Name a conservative who was marching along side of MLK and putting their life on the line in 1965?
> 
> The only people who consistently have to lie and twist themselves into knots to try to explain away the reality that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of equal rights are??? ---  you guessed it...conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While MLK was marching in the Streets, Republicans were in the Congress writing and passing Civil Rights bills.
> 
> 
> Do you know who actually desegregated the Southern Schools?  I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with Mixon.
> 
> 
> That is the reality, that YOU LEFTIES twist yourselves into knots trying to explain away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said conservatives you dic sucker
> 
> There is a reason you avoid answering my question and play the party labels game -- so to further illustrate my point I will ask it again...
> 
> Name me one prominent conservative who was down south marching along side of MLK? Was it Goldwater? Reagan? Ayn Rand?   John Birchsociety??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' know which if any conservatives were marching int he streets, but they were in congress and the federal government passing and enforcing those laws.
> 
> 
> That was my point, and it stands.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to name them....

I named a few of the prominent conservatives of that time and they all opposed the civil Rights movement...


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
Click to expand...

LOL 

The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
Click to expand...

I’m sorry was there a race riot in Baltimore? Run 100% by democrats?  Lol Chicago black people over 50 fucking shot already this year in Chicago? Lol what is your a fucking definition of racism America would love to know lol


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Winner, winner Chicken Dinner
> 
> Which proves the point that the Republican Southern Strategy worked
> 
> By 1968, four years after passing of the Civil Rights Bill
> 
> Segregationist George Wallace won: Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas
> 
> Republican Nixon won: Virginia, N Carolina, S Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky
> 
> Democrat Humphrey: Texas
> 
> Up till passing the Civil Rights Act, Democrats won them all for a hundred years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Before you move on to your next stupid claim, what happened to your claim that Wallace won the South?
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that it was wrong? Can you admit, that you did not have the results of the 1968 national election memorized?
> 
> 
> I will go first. I did not, and still do not have them memorized. I had to look it up. Oh, my god, how embarrassing. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you. Can you show any sign of having a soul, or are you only a partisan hack bot?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What happened to your claim that the Southern Strategy didn’t happen?  Wallace won the Deep South. Any state he didn’t win was won by Republican Nixon
> Dems won ONE state in a region that before the Civil Rights act they used to win EVERY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happened to it. I am and will continue to discuss it.
> 
> 
> I'm just taking a few seconds here to point out that you cannot admit that you did not have the 1968 election results memorized and were wrong when you claimed that Wallace "won the SOuth".
> 
> 
> That reveals that nothing you say, ever, should be given any credibility. Because  you are unable to be honest on even the smallest of details.
> 
> 
> This mistake you made, was TINY.
> 
> 
> And meant NOTHING. It did not reflect badly on you as a person, nor did not even undermine your argument.
> 
> 
> Yet, you cannot admit it.
> 
> 
> YOu are a completely dishonest person, totally consumed by partisan zealotry and ideological fanaticism.
> 
> 
> And in this,  you are completely representative of the liberal mainstream in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wallace won the SOUTH
> Those states that had the worst  Civil Rights record. The states where Federal Troops had to be called in
> 
> Republican Nixon still took the others
> 
> Once again, you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just revealed yourself to be a complete partisan hack with zero honesty or credibility.
> 
> 
> Over nothing.
> 
> 
> Once the situation stabilized, the shift in voting was well under ten percent. The story you tell of the "Southern Strategy, of the evul racist whites switching sides, and making the South red, is just not true.
> 
> 
> As you well know.
> 
> 
> Especially as we have discussed the interesting career of George Wallace, post segregation.
Click to expand...

Do you realize how big ten percent of the vote is?

In this case it was big enough to move from “Solid South” Democratic to almost all Republican today.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not at all. We are hoping that Trump get re-elected and then Pence gets another 8 years.
> 
> 
> In that context, it is way to early, at least for me, to get excited about any possible NEXT candidates.
> 
> 
> And we won the war in 1965. It was you slavers that lost it.
> 
> 
> 
> Name a conservative who was marching along side of MLK and putting their life on the line in 1965?
> 
> The only people who consistently have to lie and twist themselves into knots to try to explain away the reality that conservatives have always been on the wrong side of equal rights are??? ---  you guessed it...conservatives...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> While MLK was marching in the Streets, Republicans were in the Congress writing and passing Civil Rights bills.
> 
> 
> Do you know who actually desegregated the Southern Schools?  I'll give you a hint. It rhymes with Mixon.
> 
> 
> That is the reality, that YOU LEFTIES twist yourselves into knots trying to explain away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said conservatives you dic sucker
> 
> There is a reason you avoid answering my question and play the party labels game -- so to further illustrate my point I will ask it again...
> 
> Name me one prominent conservative who was down south marching along side of MLK? Was it Goldwater? Reagan? Ayn Rand?   John Birchsociety??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I dont' know which if any conservatives were marching int he streets, but they were in congress and the federal government passing and enforcing those laws.
> 
> 
> That was my point, and it stands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to name them....
> 
> I named a few of the prominent conservatives of that time and they all opposed the civil Rights movement...
Click to expand...




I don't know, nor care about the marchers. The republican conservatives were past that. THey were in government making and enforcing civil rights laws and policies.


I can name the conservative who desegregated Southern Schools, for one example.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
Click to expand...

Go to the most violent town in a red state it will be a blue Runtown blue mayor blue city counselor blue police chief blue school Superintendent


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also as racism left it became more conservative and Republican, and progressive as many blacks built schools down here, almost all the blacks I went to school with moved to the south. Less racist
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Sure they did, comrade, uh-huh. Because this is what they prefer </sarcasm>...


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also as racism left it became more conservative and Republican, and progressive as many blacks built schools down here, almost all the blacks I went to school with moved to the south. Less racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Sure they did, comrade, uh-huh. Because this is what they prefer </sarcasm>...
Click to expand...

High school history teachers what’s your point?


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also as racism left it became more conservative and Republican, and progressive as many blacks built schools down here, almost all the blacks I went to school with moved to the south. Less racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Sure they did, comrade, uh-huh. Because this is what they prefer </sarcasm>...
Click to expand...

History teacher is having free thoughts  are not racist..

Having power in creating policy that destroys black lives is the definition of racism,, and that is the democrat party.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sorry was there a race riot in Baltimore? Run 100% by democrats?  Lol Chicago black people over 50 fucking shot already this year in Chicago? Lol what is your a fucking definition of racism America would love to know lol
Click to expand...

The riot in Baltimore was spurred by police killing a black while in their custody. That's your idea of Democrat racism?m

And in Chicago, who shot those blacks?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 312992 Could have been this guy if democrats weren’t so racist
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
Click to expand...




An interesting claim. How would you back that up?


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also as racism left it became more conservative and Republican, and progressive as many blacks built schools down here, almost all the blacks I went to school with moved to the south. Less racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Sure they did, comrade, uh-huh. Because this is what they prefer </sarcasm>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> High school history teachers what’s your point?
Click to expand...

My point is you're full of shit as always.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> 
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sorry was there a race riot in Baltimore? Run 100% by democrats?  Lol Chicago black people over 50 fucking shot already this year in Chicago? Lol what is your a fucking definition of racism America would love to know lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The riot in Baltimore was spurred by police killing a black while in their custody. That's your idea of Democrat racism?m
> 
> And in Chicago, who shot those blacks?
Click to expand...

The definition of racism is having power and using  policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics..  HELLLOOO BALTIMORE Please treat is a Democrat,, Chicago policies are causing depression which is causing people to murder other human beings.. Policy created by Democrats! And they do nothing we already know there’s gonna be dozens of blacks shot this weekend you sit there and you do nothing.. YOU ARE THE RACIST LOL


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those damn racist southern conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
Click to expand...


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> 
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Also as racism left it became more conservative and Republican, and progressive as many blacks built schools down here, almost all the blacks I went to school with moved to the south. Less racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Sure they did, comrade, uh-huh. Because this is what they prefer </sarcasm>...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> High school history teachers what’s your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My point is you're full of shit as always.
Click to expand...

Individuals with different ways of thinking I’m not racist democrats that carry policy that causes oppression in the black community that causes economic immobility, democratic policy that creates the breakdown of the family, causes oppression.   That is the definition of racism power policy creation to hurt people of a different race.. 
your definition is freeman standing with a flag lol


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> 
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Confederate army was the most diverse army in America at the time it had Latinos that Indians in that Asians it had free blacks! Brazil still celebrates confederacy day, blacks celebrate confederacy!  Where did you go to school?


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sorry was there a race riot in Baltimore? Run 100% by democrats?  Lol Chicago black people over 50 fucking shot already this year in Chicago? Lol what is your a fucking definition of racism America would love to know lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The riot in Baltimore was spurred by police killing a black while in their custody. That's your idea of Democrat racism?m
> 
> And in Chicago, who shot those blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of racism is having power and using  policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics..  HELLLOOO BALTIMORE Please treat is a Democrat,, Chicago policies are causing depression which is causing people to murder other human beings.. Policy created by Democrats! And they do nothing we already know there’s gonna be dozens of blacks shot this weekend you sit there and you do nothing.. YOU ARE THE RACIST LOL
Click to expand...

*Please treat is a Democrat*

WTF?? Sorry comrade, I don't speak your native Russian.

And cite the Chicago policies causing depression....


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m sorry was there a race riot in Baltimore? Run 100% by democrats?  Lol Chicago black people over 50 fucking shot already this year in Chicago? Lol what is your a fucking definition of racism America would love to know lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The riot in Baltimore was spurred by police killing a black while in their custody. That's your idea of Democrat racism?m
> 
> And in Chicago, who shot those blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of racism is having power and using  policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics..  HELLLOOO BALTIMORE Please treat is a Democrat,, Chicago policies are causing depression which is causing people to murder other human beings.. Policy created by Democrats! And they do nothing we already know there’s gonna be dozens of blacks shot this weekend you sit there and you do nothing.. YOU ARE THE RACIST LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Please treat is a Democrat*
> 
> WTF?? Sorry comrade, I don't speak your native Russian.
> 
> And cite the Chicago policies causing depression....
Click to expand...

All Democrat policies are racist and create depression every major city in America Is a police state and has high violence numbers!
If you’re a police state is supposed to be temporary it is supposed to reduce the violent crimes it’s the opposite of democratic Run-towns lol  From the destruction of public education to the breakdown of the African-American family democratic policies are destroying the African-American community causing oppression and depression


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederate army was the most diverse army in America at the time it had Latinos that Indians in that Asians it had free blacks! Brazil still celebrates confederacy day, blacks celebrate confederacy!  Where did you go to school? View attachment 313201
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

You Russian bots need to learn American history if you're going to post here. The Confederacy formed as a secessionist entity, hell bent on keeping slavery legal in the nation of their dreams.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry was there a race riot in Baltimore? Run 100% by democrats?  Lol Chicago black people over 50 fucking shot already this year in Chicago? Lol what is your a fucking definition of racism America would love to know lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The riot in Baltimore was spurred by police killing a black while in their custody. That's your idea of Democrat racism?m
> 
> And in Chicago, who shot those blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of racism is having power and using  policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics..  HELLLOOO BALTIMORE Please treat is a Democrat,, Chicago policies are causing depression which is causing people to murder other human beings.. Policy created by Democrats! And they do nothing we already know there’s gonna be dozens of blacks shot this weekend you sit there and you do nothing.. YOU ARE THE RACIST LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Please treat is a Democrat*
> 
> WTF?? Sorry comrade, I don't speak your native Russian.
> 
> And cite the Chicago policies causing depression....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Democrat policies are racist and create depression every major city in America Is a police state and has high violence numbers!
> If you’re a police state is supposed to be temporary it is supposed to reduce the violent crimes it’s the opposite of democratic Run-towns lol  From the destruction of public education to the breakdown of the African-American family democratic policies are destroying the African-American community causing oppression and depression
Click to expand...


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederate army was the most diverse army in America at the time it had Latinos that Indians in that Asians it had free blacks! Brazil still celebrates confederacy day, blacks celebrate confederacy!  Where did you go to school? View attachment 313201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You Russian bots need to learn American history if you're going to post here. The Confederacy formed as a secessionist entity, hell bent on keeping slavery legal in the nation of their dreams.
Click to expand...

Yes they disagreed with the north on many issues not just slavery and How to end slavery,, many fought for that.. Frederick Douglass wrote that the north elites did not understand the Southerners, and he felt more comfortable with Southerners that he did with black elite Northerners.. just facts get a education


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I’m sorry was there a race riot in Baltimore? Run 100% by democrats?  Lol Chicago black people over 50 fucking shot already this year in Chicago? Lol what is your a fucking definition of racism America would love to know lol
> 
> 
> 
> The riot in Baltimore was spurred by police killing a black while in their custody. That's your idea of Democrat racism?m
> 
> And in Chicago, who shot those blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The definition of racism is having power and using  policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics..  HELLLOOO BALTIMORE Please treat is a Democrat,, Chicago policies are causing depression which is causing people to murder other human beings.. Policy created by Democrats! And they do nothing we already know there’s gonna be dozens of blacks shot this weekend you sit there and you do nothing.. YOU ARE THE RACIST LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Please treat is a Democrat*
> 
> WTF?? Sorry comrade, I don't speak your native Russian.
> 
> And cite the Chicago policies causing depression....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Democrat policies are racist and create depression every major city in America Is a police state and has high violence numbers!
> If you’re a police state is supposed to be temporary it is supposed to reduce the violent crimes it’s the opposite of democratic Run-towns lol  From the destruction of public education to the breakdown of the African-American family democratic policies are destroying the African-American community causing oppression and depression
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That’s your substance for all the crime rape and murder is police state run democrat run towns? Lol haha you just been retired


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Before you move on to your next stupid claim, what happened to your claim that Wallace won the South?
> 
> 
> Are you admitting that it was wrong? Can you admit, that you did not have the results of the 1968 national election memorized?
> 
> 
> I will go first. I did not, and still do not have them memorized. I had to look it up. Oh, my god, how embarrassing. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> So, now you. Can you show any sign of having a soul, or are you only a partisan hack bot?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> What happened to your claim that the Southern Strategy didn’t happen?  Wallace won the Deep South. Any state he didn’t win was won by Republican Nixon
> Dems won ONE state in a region that before the Civil Rights act they used to win EVERY
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing happened to it. I am and will continue to discuss it.
> 
> 
> I'm just taking a few seconds here to point out that you cannot admit that you did not have the 1968 election results memorized and were wrong when you claimed that Wallace "won the SOuth".
> 
> 
> That reveals that nothing you say, ever, should be given any credibility. Because  you are unable to be honest on even the smallest of details.
> 
> 
> This mistake you made, was TINY.
> 
> 
> And meant NOTHING. It did not reflect badly on you as a person, nor did not even undermine your argument.
> 
> 
> Yet, you cannot admit it.
> 
> 
> YOu are a completely dishonest person, totally consumed by partisan zealotry and ideological fanaticism.
> 
> 
> And in this,  you are completely representative of the liberal mainstream in this country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wallace won the SOUTH
> Those states that had the worst  Civil Rights record. The states where Federal Troops had to be called in
> 
> Republican Nixon still took the others
> 
> Once again, you lose
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, you just revealed yourself to be a complete partisan hack with zero honesty or credibility.
> 
> 
> Over nothing.
> 
> 
> Once the situation stabilized, the shift in voting was well under ten percent. The story you tell of the "Southern Strategy, of the evul racist whites switching sides, and making the South red, is just not true.
> 
> 
> As you well know.
> 
> 
> Especially as we have discussed the interesting career of George Wallace, post segregation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you realize how big ten percent of the vote is?
> 
> In this case it was big enough to move from “Solid South” Democratic to almost all Republican today.
Click to expand...



i know it is more than "less than ten percent, which is what I said. 


And that is my point. That the republicans had a strong minority support in the South, even before the dems gave up their alliance with the southern racist bloc. 


THe vast majority of dems that supported the dems during Jim Crow, stayed with the dems after the national party flipped on the issue, and even when the state parties gave up on it.


The vast majority of the republican voters who supported the republicans before and after the dems giving up Jim Crow, were the same.



This Myth you libs tell of this massive reversal, is just that, a myth.


When the dems gave up the ghost on White Racism, that issue became a moot issue. As you can see with what happened with George Wallace.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederate army was the most diverse army in America at the time it had Latinos that Indians in that Asians it had free blacks! Brazil still celebrates confederacy day, blacks celebrate confederacy!  Where did you go to school? View attachment 313201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You Russian bots need to learn American history if you're going to post here. The Confederacy formed as a secessionist entity, hell bent on keeping slavery legal in the nation of their dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they disagreed with the north on many issues not just slavery and How to end slavery,, many fought for that.. Frederick Douglass wrote that the north elites did not understand the Southerners, and he felt more comfortable with Southerners that he did with black elite Northerners.. just facts get a education
Click to expand...

Slavery was their number #1 cause. States rights was #2 -- they wanted their states to have the right to keep slavery legal.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The riot in Baltimore was spurred by police killing a black while in their custody. That's your idea of Democrat racism?m
> 
> And in Chicago, who shot those blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of racism is having power and using  policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics..  HELLLOOO BALTIMORE Please treat is a Democrat,, Chicago policies are causing depression which is causing people to murder other human beings.. Policy created by Democrats! And they do nothing we already know there’s gonna be dozens of blacks shot this weekend you sit there and you do nothing.. YOU ARE THE RACIST LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Please treat is a Democrat*
> 
> WTF?? Sorry comrade, I don't speak your native Russian.
> 
> And cite the Chicago policies causing depression....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Democrat policies are racist and create depression every major city in America Is a police state and has high violence numbers!
> If you’re a police state is supposed to be temporary it is supposed to reduce the violent crimes it’s the opposite of democratic Run-towns lol  From the destruction of public education to the breakdown of the African-American family democratic policies are destroying the African-American community causing oppression and depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your substance for all the crime rape and murder is police state run democrat run towns? Lol haha you just been retired
Click to expand...

No, that's my response to the bullshit you posted.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have always been against black flight
> 
> 
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?


That is silly. You are not that stupid. 


Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Confederate army was the most diverse army in America at the time it had Latinos that Indians in that Asians it had free blacks! Brazil still celebrates confederacy day, blacks celebrate confederacy!  Where did you go to school? View attachment 313201
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You Russian bots need to learn American history if you're going to post here. The Confederacy formed as a secessionist entity, hell bent on keeping slavery legal in the nation of their dreams.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes they disagreed with the north on many issues not just slavery and How to end slavery,, many fought for that.. Frederick Douglass wrote that the north elites did not understand the Southerners, and he felt more comfortable with Southerners that he did with black elite Northerners.. just facts get a education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was their number #1 cause. States rights was #2 -- they wanted their states to have the right to keep slavery legal.
Click to expand...

To who? Democrats yes.. most of the people in the south didn’t even see a slave.. 
they were protecting the land from the north that was invading.. The elite Democrats have always been wanting slavery we have urban slaves plantations today based off of facts.. 

You are the racist


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of racism is having power and using  policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics..  HELLLOOO BALTIMORE Please treat is a Democrat,, Chicago policies are causing depression which is causing people to murder other human beings.. Policy created by Democrats! And they do nothing we already know there’s gonna be dozens of blacks shot this weekend you sit there and you do nothing.. YOU ARE THE RACIST LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Please treat is a Democrat*
> 
> WTF?? Sorry comrade, I don't speak your native Russian.
> 
> And cite the Chicago policies causing depression....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Democrat policies are racist and create depression every major city in America Is a police state and has high violence numbers!
> If you’re a police state is supposed to be temporary it is supposed to reduce the violent crimes it’s the opposite of democratic Run-towns lol  From the destruction of public education to the breakdown of the African-American family democratic policies are destroying the African-American community causing oppression and depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your substance for all the crime rape and murder is police state run democrat run towns? Lol haha you just been retired
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that's my response to the bullshit you posted.
Click to expand...

The definition of racism is people in power creating policy to hurt another race,, THAT IS THE DEMOCRAT PARTY LOL


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of racism is having power and using  policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics..  HELLLOOO BALTIMORE Please treat is a Democrat,, Chicago policies are causing depression which is causing people to murder other human beings.. Policy created by Democrats! And they do nothing we already know there’s gonna be dozens of blacks shot this weekend you sit there and you do nothing.. YOU ARE THE RACIST LOL
> 
> 
> 
> *Please treat is a Democrat*
> 
> WTF?? Sorry comrade, I don't speak your native Russian.
> 
> And cite the Chicago policies causing depression....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All Democrat policies are racist and create depression every major city in America Is a police state and has high violence numbers!
> If you’re a police state is supposed to be temporary it is supposed to reduce the violent crimes it’s the opposite of democratic Run-towns lol  From the destruction of public education to the breakdown of the African-American family democratic policies are destroying the African-American community causing oppression and depression
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s your substance for all the crime rape and murder is police state run democrat run towns? Lol haha you just been retired
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, that's my response to the bullshit you posted.
Click to expand...


a doctrine or political programbased on the assumption of racismand designed to execute its principles
b*:* a political or social system foundedon racism
3*:* racial prejudice or discrimination

this is the definition of racism,, 
Democrats are in control of 100% of the principles executed in black communities! 
This is the definition you are the racist


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the racist conservative south that was once heavily Democrat is now heavily Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
Click to expand...

Wherever you went to school get your money back you were lied to! Lol people of color celebrate the confederacy every year lol your either ignorant or stupid lol


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
Click to expand...




Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible. 


The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.


So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?

Ask most blacks how they feel about it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

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


----------



## IM2

*"Grumblenuts read your posts, where you claimed it was not possible for blacks to be racist.

He disagreed. But he did not challenge you on it."*

Correll,

There was no need  to challenge him because he recognizes the situation and does not try arguing false equivalences and lies.


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
Click to expand...


That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
Click to expand...


We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing. 

What  the symbol stands for has never changed.


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
Click to expand...

We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change
Click to expand...


Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag. 

You are rather slow, aren't you?


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag.
> 
> You are rather slow, aren't you?
Click to expand...

I love that flag


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag.
> 
> You are rather slow, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love that flag
Click to expand...


No doubt that you do. It is unfortunate that you weren't around during the time of the civil war, you could have fought for the confederacy, instead of trolling in this forum.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Jitss617 said:


> The definition of racism is having power and using policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics.


Sad day, Correll & co. Jitbag has crafted a fairly sensible definition of racism. Example:


> "Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as "driving while black or brown"), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband.


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag.
> 
> You are rather slow, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love that flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt that you do. It is unfortunate that you weren't around during the time of the civil war, you could have fought for the confederacy, instead of trolling in this forum.
Click to expand...

I would have been Neutral


----------



## Jitss617

Grumblenuts said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The definition of racism is having power and using policy to destroy people based off of their race and racial characteristics.
> 
> 
> 
> Sad day, Correll & co. Jitbag has crafted a fairly sensible definition of racism. Example:
> 
> 
> 
> "Racial Profiling" refers to the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Criminal profiling, generally, as practiced by police, is the reliance on a group of characteristics they believe to be associated with crime. Examples of racial profiling are the use of race to determine which drivers to stop for minor traffic violations (commonly referred to as "driving while black or brown"), or the use of race to determine which pedestrians to search for illegal contraband.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That’s fallacy,, blacks live in urban areas with cops everywhere of course they get pulled over more.. more victimizing blacks instead of telling them the truth


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know what the definition of the word "racism" is? Don't give me _your_ definition; give me the dictionary definition and the definition as most of the rest of the world understands the word.
> 
> 
> 
> My definition is what dictionaries provide.
> 
> 
> 
> *racism*
> [ rey-siz-uh m ]
> SEE SYNONYMS FOR racism ON THESAURUS.COM
> *noun*
> 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is implicit. Again, what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He assumed I lied and made up my story because I'm white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I doubt it was that simplistic, but please explain how that threatens or harms you given the definition provided?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The power dynamic is horseshit made up by people to let them excuse their own racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only according to white racists. And Ghost rider is still crying because I applied EEOC standards to his story about racism he said he faced on a job after he went and told a supervisor on a black employee. He narced on a black employee and the black employee got mad and spit on him. Now given the circumstances, without the black employee making any racial comment before he spit on ghost rider, there can be no determination that race had anything to do with the situation according to EEOC guidelines. Ghost needed to have documented examples of his racist behavior in order to prove this. This is the standard. You just don't get to run up and claim that somebody was being racist to you without evidence.
> 
> I know whites like most of you racists think that all a person has to do is holler racism and that's proof, but all claims of racism must be supported by documented evidence. Every claim a person of color makes in this regard has such documentation. So whites must follow the same rules.
Click to expand...

Your racism has been pointed out to you before.  You screeched NUH UH!!, as if that is a valid refutation.  

Further, the use of the charge by leftists to shut down debate because they have no argument is absolutely undeniable.  Look at Trump.  Never had a charge of racism levied against him until he won the nomination.  But the left expects us to take it seriously simply because they say it.

And if all you've got is NUH UH!!, save it.  I'm not impressed.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it is not. And why didn't you post the complete definition? Here, let me do that for you:
> 
> 2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
> 
> *3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
> *
> Merriam-Webster's defines racism as:
> 
> 1: A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race.
> *2: Racial prejudice or discrimination.*
> 
> He called me a liar in public. Where the fuck else was I going to talk about it?
> 
> Were you there? Did you even fully read my earlier post about it? As I already said, that discussion was where he and I had our first exchanges. He didn't know me from Adam but had the temerity to accuse me of lying about my experience.
> 
> It doesn't get any more simplistic than that. Here, see for yourself: Are Blacks More Racist Than Whites? Most Americans Say Yes
> 
> My reason for bringing that up in the first place was to illustrate how quickly people today are inclined to see racism around every corner.
> 
> It doesn't and I never said it did. But what it does do is show how IM2 judges people by race.
> 
> Now let me ask you a question. IM2 considers me racist and has called me one numerous times. Given that I have never oppressed him and have no power or authority to do so; and given that I do not even meet the criteria laid out in the definitions (I hold no beliefs in inherent differences between the races and I do not feel my race is superior or that any race is inferior), on what basis does he justifiably consider me racist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  We call you racist because you are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you call me a racist because I refuse to just take your racism and be quiet. So you call me a racist thinking that's going to make me feel bad and then I'll shut up. But that won't work as long as you guys continue posting your racism.
Click to expand...

Hey, remember when you said you have proof for every charge of racism you lay?

Hop to it.  Show me where I've been racist.

Or retract the charge.

Prediction:  You will do neither.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because we know Candice Owens is a loser who took a 37,500 settlement for being racially abused by whites who goes around telling white folks how blacks who complain about white racism have a victim mentality and you idiots suck it up while paying her high dollar to listen to her stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You poor kid, everything you type screams victim hood". Everything is Whitey's fault to you. She is your exact opposite, she is intelligent, educated, well spoken and civil. You? Not so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Owens is just a sellout that says what you desperately need to hear. I can say that white racism is the cause of our problem and I show why in the The Stone Cold Truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not even very original.
> You would think she could add some black perspective to being Republican.  Instead, she just mimics white hate speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you'd know -- what's the female equivalent of "Uncle Tom"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Tom.
Click to expand...

A...female...Uncle Tom?

That's dumb as fuck.


----------



## daveman

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...


Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.

And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.


----------



## JustAGuy1

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
Click to expand...


So? Free Speech is their "right".


----------



## Grumblenuts

So looks like no First Black Republican Presidential Nominees anytime soon..


----------



## IM2

JustAGuy1 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Free Speech is their "right".
Click to expand...


Yeah right. Seems that sentiment doesn't apply to the New Black Panther Party.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
Click to expand...


The north won the civil war. Not republicans.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor kid, everything you type screams victim hood". Everything is Whitey's fault to you. She is your exact opposite, she is intelligent, educated, well spoken and civil. You? Not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Owens is just a sellout that says what you desperately need to hear. I can say that white racism is the cause of our problem and I show why in the The Stone Cold Truth
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> She is not even very original.
> You would think she could add some black perspective to being Republican.  Instead, she just mimics white hate speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you'd know -- what's the female equivalent of "Uncle Tom"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Tom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A...female...Uncle Tom?
> 
> That's dumb as fuck.
Click to expand...


Candice Owens is as dumb as fuck and idiots like you call her intelligent.


----------



## daveman

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As it became less racist, it became less Democratic. Until eventually, dems stated losing elections.
> 
> 
> What part of this doesn't make sense to you?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
Click to expand...

These damn white supremacists!

Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.  

It's the White Liberal's Burden.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties call people racist, because lefties are lying assholes.
> 
> 
> 
> That is their "justification".
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  We call you racist because you are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you call me a racist because I refuse to just take your racism and be quiet. So you call me a racist thinking that's going to make me feel bad and then I'll shut up. But that won't work as long as you guys continue posting your racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, remember when you said you have proof for every charge of racism you lay?
> 
> Hop to it.  Show me where I've been racist.
> 
> Or retract the charge.
> 
> Prediction:  You will do neither.
Click to expand...


Your posts do it for you.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
Click to expand...


The white liberals tell us nothing. We think for ourselves. Your post is an example of your racism.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The north won the civil war. Not republicans.
Click to expand...

The white liberals here kissing your ass will believe you, but rational people won't.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Owens is just a sellout that says what you desperately need to hear. I can say that white racism is the cause of our problem and I show why in the The Stone Cold Truth
> 
> 
> 
> She is not even very original.
> You would think she could add some black perspective to being Republican.  Instead, she just mimics white hate speech
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure you'd know -- what's the female equivalent of "Uncle Tom"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uncle Tom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A...female...Uncle Tom?
> 
> That's dumb as fuck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Candice Owens is as dumb as fuck and idiots like you call her intelligent.
Click to expand...

She's "clean and articulate".

She's also a hell of a lot smarter than you are.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 313053
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that why all you white republicans here call me a racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  We call you racist because you are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, you call me a racist because I refuse to just take your racism and be quiet. So you call me a racist thinking that's going to make me feel bad and then I'll shut up. But that won't work as long as you guys continue posting your racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hey, remember when you said you have proof for every charge of racism you lay?
> 
> Hop to it.  Show me where I've been racist.
> 
> Or retract the charge.
> 
> Prediction:  You will do neither.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your posts do it for you.
Click to expand...

You lose.  You have no proof.  You call me a racist in a vain and stupid effort to shame me into silence.

You know -- _exactly as the graphic I posted said you do_.

You're nothing if not predictable.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The white liberals tell us nothing. We think for ourselves. And here is an example of your racism.
Click to expand...

That's not at all racist.  But you have no rational argument, so you act as predicted.

You think for yourselves?  Some of you do, certainly. 

They're rarely liberals.  And you hate them.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Never mind your eyes. You've now shot your mouth off.


----------



## JustAGuy1

IM2 said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Free Speech is their "right".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Seems that sentiment doesn't apply to the New Black Panther Party.
Click to expand...


They have "rights" too. That's the difference between you and everyone else. You're a punk assed partisan racist bitch. The rest of us are happy to let you be you.


----------



## JustAGuy1

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The north won the civil war. Not republicans.
Click to expand...


People like you make Northerner's regret their sacrifice.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> *"Grumblenuts read your posts, where you claimed it was not possible for blacks to be racist.
> 
> He disagreed. But he did not challenge you on it."*
> 
> Correll,
> 
> There was no need  to challenge him because he recognizes the situation and does not try arguing false equivalences and lies.





He was kowtowing to you. Even though he knows that what you said was stupid. That was him being completely racist. To you and to himself.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
Click to expand...



Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy. 


Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride. 


And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> Never mind your eyes. You've now shot your mouth off.


Oe noes!  A liberal disagrees with me!  Whatever shall I do?  Wherever shall I go?

I'm curious what you believe your disagreement obligates me to do.  Way I see it -- nothing.  What do you think...errr, sorry, wrong word..._feel_?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Not many blacks, let alone Republican Presidential nominees..


----------



## Grumblenuts

daveman said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind your eyes. You've now shot your mouth off.
> 
> 
> 
> Oe noes!  A liberal disagrees with me!  Whatever shall I do?  Wherever shall I go?
> 
> I'm curious what you believe your disagreement obligates me to do.  Way I see it -- nothing.  What do you think...errr, sorry, wrong word..._feel_?
Click to expand...

Your sense of humor is truly tragic. Okay, back to shooting your eye out..


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

daveman said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
Click to expand...

Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..

Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?

Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Not many blacks, let alone Republican Presidential nominees..



And Daisy Duke should have worn long pants. No ass.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind your eyes. You've now shot your mouth off.
> 
> 
> 
> Oe noes!  A liberal disagrees with me!  Whatever shall I do?  Wherever shall I go?
> 
> I'm curious what you believe your disagreement obligates me to do.  Way I see it -- nothing.  What do you think...errr, sorry, wrong word..._feel_?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your sense of humor is truly tragic. Okay, back to shooting your eye out..
Click to expand...

Given you believe the pinnacle of humor is a Trump = Hitler photoshop, I'll feel free to disregard your judgement.


----------



## MAGAman

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


When will Democrats nominate a candidate that doesn't think blacks are so inferior to whites they need Affirmative Action?


----------



## IM2

JustAGuy1 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The north won the civil war. Not republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you make Northerner's regret their sacrifice.
Click to expand...


Northerners sacrificed nothing for blacks. And I am not going for the racist sentiment of how we should be grateful to whites for freeing us when we never should have been slaves in the first place.


----------



## IM2

MAGAman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> When will Democrats no longer inate a candidate that doesn't think blacks are so inferior to whites they need Affirmative Action?
Click to expand...

The day white republicans understand they have been getting affirmative action since the beginning of the country.


----------



## IM2

JustAGuy1 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So? Free Speech is their "right".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah right. Seems that sentiment doesn't apply to the New Black Panther Party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They have "rights" too. That's the difference between you and everyone else. You're a punk assed partisan racist bitch. The rest of us are happy to let you be you.
Click to expand...


You are the racist. You just can't deal with a black man who not only calls you out on your racism, but you can't dispute him. You can't gaslight him into agreeing with your racism, and you can't out debate him.


----------



## daveman

Biff_Poindexter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
Click to expand...

No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.

_They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.  

How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?  

And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The north won the civil war. Not republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you make Northerner's regret their sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Northerners sacrificed nothing for blacks. And I am not going for the racist sentiment of how we should be grateful to whites for freeing us when we never should have been slaves in the first place.
Click to expand...

Then perhaps your anger would be better directed at the Africans who sold Africans into slavery to begin with.  

LOL!  Just kidding.  Everything is Whitey's fault.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The white liberals tell us nothing. We think for ourselves. And here is an example of your racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not at all racist.  But you have no rational argument, so you act as predicted.
> 
> You think for yourselves?  Some of you do, certainly.
> 
> They're rarely liberals.  And you hate them.
Click to expand...


Yes it is racist. Your comment says that blacks are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need white liberals to tell us what to think because we wouldn't know without them. That's pure d racism so. In your opinion the only blacks thinking for themselves are the ones who validate or repeat what you believe. That's not thinking for themselves, it's internalized racism.

Internalized racism is defined by Dr. Karen D. Pike as, the *"internalization of racial oppression by the racially subordinated."* In a study named “The Psychology of Racism”, Robin Nicole Johnson points out that *internalized racism entails both "conscious and unconscious acceptance of a racial hierarchy in which whites are consistently ranked above people of color." *Blacks who suffer from internalized racism believe and promote negative stereotypes of their own race. They will adopt white standards and thinking. This is the literal meaning of acting white and it has nothing to do with getting good grades or going to college.

Blacks doing this are not thinking for themselves. This is thinking the way white racists tell them to think. That they exist below whites and that our standards are not equal to theirs, hence blacks must adopt their standards, ideas and opinions in order to be accepted. Can you say ASSIMILATION into a claim of white culture?


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...


The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> Yes it is racist. Your comment says that blacks are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need white liberals to tell us what to think because we wouldn't know without them. That's pure d racism so.


You need to pay better attention.

I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.  

_White liberals_ believe that.  

So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.
Click to expand...

Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.  

Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JustAGuy1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The north won the civil war. Not republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People like you make Northerner's regret their sacrifice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Northerners sacrificed nothing for blacks. And I am not going for the racist sentiment of how we should be grateful to whites for freeing us when we never should have been slaves in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then perhaps your anger would be better directed at the Africans who sold Africans into slavery to begin with.
> 
> LOL!  Just kidding.  Everything is Whitey's fault.
Click to expand...


The Schomburg Center for the Research of Black Culture has excellent information about the African slave trade that provides a stark contrast between what happened and what some use as an excuse to discount the experiences of blacks in America. The web site is named, _“The Abolition of the Slave Trade-African Resistance.” _From the introduction, information contained in this collection debunks the race pimped tales presented by some in America today.

_*“Africans started to fight the transatlantic slave trade as soon as it began. Their struggles were multifaceted and covered four continents over four centuries. Still, they have often been underestimated, overlooked, or forgotten. African resistance was reported in European sources only when it concerned attacks on slave ships and company barracoons, but acts of resistance also took place far from the coast and thus escaped the slavers’ attention. To discover them, oral history, archaeology, and autobiographies and biographies of African victims of the slave trade have to be probed. Taken together, these various sources offer a detailed image of the varied strategies Africans used to defend themselves from and mount attacks against the slave trade.*_
*
*
_*The Africans’ resistance continued in the Americas. They ran away, established maroon communities, used sabotage, conspired, and rose against those who held them in captivity. Freed people petitioned the authorities, led information campaigns, and worked actively to abolish the slave trade and slavery.*_
*
*
_*In Europe, black abolitionists launched or participated in civic movements to end the deportation and enslavement of Africans. They too delivered speeches, provided information, wrote newspaper articles and books. Using violent as well as nonviolent means, Africans in Africa, the Americas, and Europe were constantly involved in the fight against the slave trade and slavery.”*_

The tale of Africa’s role in the slave trade as told by a segment of white society is incomplete and disingenuous. This has been done on purpose. It was not so simple as blacks capturing each other and selling them to whites. Europeans did not just waltz into Africa and overwhelm a bunch of backward, naked, dumb savages. They were in a fight for 400 years. Quite a number of Europeans entered Africa and Africa ended up being their final resting place.

_*“Some leaders actively worked against the transatlantic slave trade. One of the most famous was Abdel Kader Kane, the Muslim leader of the Futa Toro region in northern Senegal. Kane had succeeded in peopling his kingdom by retaking by force his people who had been kidnapped and by forbidding slave caravans from passing through his territory. After the French took three children from Futa, Kane sent a letter to the governor:*_


_*We are warning you that all those who will come to our land to trade [in slaves] will be killed and massacred if you do not send our children back. Would not somebody who was very hungry abstain from eating if he had to eat something cooked with his blood? We absolutely do not want you to buy Muslims under any circumstances. I repeat that if your intention is to always buy Muslims you should stay home and not come to our country anymore. Because all those who will come can be assured that they will lose their life.”*_

Slavery was said to have ended in 1865. But it did not. For 100 years after slavery blacks endured a system just as bad called apartheid. The Stone Cold Truth So yes, the root cause of the problems blacks face is whiteys racism.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is racist. Your comment says that blacks are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need white liberals to tell us what to think because we wouldn't know without them. That's pure d racism so.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.
> 
> _White liberals_ believe that.
> 
> So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.
Click to expand...


White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
> 
> Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.
Click to expand...


Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.


----------



## MAGAman

bodecea said:


> Of course....so easy, so obvious you will now tell us when that exact time is.....right?


That's really a stupid question. 

Tell us exactly when the Democrats will nominate the 2nd black, or the first fully black, or the 1st black woman, or anyone ever again that supports Human Rights?

Your incessant need to be a pitiful victim and be defined by something you had nothing to do with is really childish. Stop being a loser and grow up.


----------



## IM2

*"Then perhaps your anger would be better directed at the Africans who sold Africans into slavery to begin with."*

_“As the slave trade expanded, resistance to it grew as well, and the need for shackles, guns, ropes, chains, iron balls, and whips tells an eloquent story of continuous and violent struggle from the hinterland to the high seas. As one slave trader remarked:_

_For the security and safekeeping of the slaves on board or on shore in the African barracoons, chains, leg irons, handcuffs, and strong houses are used. I would remark that this also is one of the forcible necessities resorted to for the preservation of the order, and as recourse against the dangerous consequences of this traffic.”_
 

_“Wherever possible, such as in Saint-Louis and Gorée (Senegal), James (Gambia), and Bance (Sierra Leone), the Europeans' barracoons were located on islands, which made escapes and attacks more difficult. In some areas, as soon as local people approached the boats, the crew is ordered to take up arms, the cannons are aimed, and the fuses are lighted . . . One must, without any hesitation, shoot at them and not spare them. The loss of the vessel and the life of the crew are at stake.”_

_*“The heavily fortified forts and barracoons attest to the Europeans' distrust and apprehension. They had to protect themselves, as Jean-Baptiste Durand of the Compagnie du Sénégal explained, from the foreign vessels and from the Negroes living in the country."*_

_*“These precautions notwithstanding, in the eighteenth century, Fort Saint-Joseph on the Senegal River was attacked and all commerce was interrupted for six years. Several conspiracies and actual revolts by captives erupted on Gorée Island and resulted in the death of the governor and several soldiers. In addition, the crews of quite a few slave ships were killed on the River Gambia; in Sierra Leone, people sacked the captives' quarters of the infamous trader John Ormond. Similar incidents occurred in other parts of the African coast. Written records document how Africans on shore attacked more than a hundred ships.*_

_Some Western slavers maintained occult centers in their barracoons, staffed by men they paid to work on the captives, sometimes with medicinal plants. The objective was to kill any spirit of rebellion, to tame the detainees, and make them accept their fate. The existence of these centers shows the extent of the precautions taken by slavers to prevent rebellions on land and during the Middle Passage: shackles and guns controlled the body, while the spirit was broken. _

_But revolts on slave ships, although extremely difficult to organize and conduct, were numerous*. About 420 revolts have been documented in slavers' papers, and they do not represent the totality. It is estimated that 100,000 Africans died in uprisings on the coast or during the Middle Passage. The fear of revolts resulted in additional costs for the slavers: larger crews, heavy weapons, and barricades. About 18 percent of the costs of the Middle Passage were incurred due to measures to thwart uprisings, and the captives who rose up saved, according to estimates, one million Africans from deportation by driving up the slavers' expenses.”*_

Schomburg Center for the Research of Black Culture “The Abolition of the Slave Trade-African Resistance.” African Resistance - The Abolition of The Slave Trade


----------



## IM2

MAGAman said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course....so easy, so obvious you will now tell us when that exact time is.....right?
> 
> 
> 
> That's really a stupid question.
> 
> Tell us exactly when the Democrats will nominate the 2nd black, or the first fully black, or the 1st black woman, or anyone ever again that supports Human Rights?
> 
> Your incessant need to be a pitiful victim and be defined by something you had nothing to do with is really childish. Stop being a loser and grow up.
Click to expand...


Obama was black. And the democrats don't have to answer any such question. Republicans here have nothing to say until they nominate their first black presidential candidate, not when democrats nominate another one, or one  that's fully black, or a black woman. Democrats have nominated a black man for president and a woman. Republicans have nominated none. Your excuses have no merit boy.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Just because blacks resisted the slave trade does not mean blacks did not actually sell other blacks, because they did. Your slight of hand won't work. Black tribes were involved DIRECTLY in selling black slaves they had to white slavers. As a point in fact, you DISMISS the whites that died opposing slavery as to little to late or other bullshit. While claiming just because Black tribes also fought against slavery some how nullifies the fact that other black tribes sold black slaves.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Just because blacks resisted the slave trade does not mean blacks did not actually sell other blacks, because they did. Your slight of hand won't work. Black tribes were involved DIRECTLY in selling black slaves they had to white slavers. As a point in fact, you DISMISS the whites that died opposing slavery as to little to late or other bullshit. While claiming just because Black tribes also fought against slavery some how nullifies the fact that other black tribes sold black slaves.



What it means is that the story whites are telling is not true. Now you need to accept that because there is ample evidence of how whites sold arms to certain African tribes so they could use them against tribes they were at war with, then pay them for the prisoners of war. There is also proof that whites instigated trouble between black tribes that ended up in battles where whites armed one side in order to get the captives. Africans wanted to trade for guns and whites would only accept slaves in order for Africans to get guns. Furthermore the Africans did not see themselves as one monolith, but they were nations and tribes no different than the Europeans. So Africans did not see themselves selling other Africans, they saw a Mali selling a Nigerian, no different than the British selling Irish as slaves in Europe.

So again, the story you want to create is disingenuous and that's just the way it is.

Last, I don't ignore shit. Whites created the problem here in America and you want to pretend that blacks ran around willingly capturing each other to sell to the white man and then the white man died to free us. But that's not how it went. Whites never died to free slaves. Northern or southern. The northern whites did not give a damn about slaves, Lincoln got them to fight for the preservation of the union. So you might be able to tell that lie to so9mebody like a Candice Owens, but I have studied this and continue doing so and what you say is not the way things happened.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because blacks resisted the slave trade does not mean blacks did not actually sell other blacks, because they did. Your slight of hand won't work. Black tribes were involved DIRECTLY in selling black slaves they had to white slavers. As a point in fact, you DISMISS the whites that died opposing slavery as to little to late or other bullshit. While claiming just because Black tribes also fought against slavery some how nullifies the fact that other black tribes sold black slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it means is that the story whites are telling is not true. Now you need to accept that because there is ample evidence of how whites sold arms to certain African tribes so they could use them against tribes they were at war with, then pay them for the prisoners of war. There is also proof that whites instigated trouble between black tribes that ended up in battles where whites armed one side in order to get slaves. Africans wanted to trade for guns and whites would only accept slaves in order for Africans to get guns. Furthermore the Africans did not see themselves as one monolith, but they were nations and tribes no different than the Europeans. So Africans did not see themselves selling other Africans, they saw a Mali selling a Nigerian, no different than the British selling Irish as slaves in Europe.
> 
> So again, the story you want to create is disingenuous and that's just the way it is.
> 
> Last, I don't ignore shit. Whites created the problem here in America and you want to pretend that blacks ran around willingly capturing each other to sell to the white man and then the white man died to free us. But that's not how it went.
Click to expand...

LOL you ADMIT black tribes sold blacks to slavers and claim me saying it is disingenuous. Now racist retard go back and CITE with a quote where I ever claimed black tribes did not fight to stop the slave trade. All I and others ever said was that YES IN FACT Black TRIBES sold black slaves to Slavers. You ignore the fact that blacks sold black slaves to slavers while claiming because some tribes fought against it that is all we need to know. Meanwhile you dismiss the same 400 years of whites fighting to end slavery. You dismiss 600000 dead white people fighting a war that ended slavery here. You ignore all the whites that worked tirelessly to free black slaves in the US and around the world. You dismiss all the whites that died before the civil war fighting slavery. Like I said you are a racist and can not see past skin color.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just because blacks resisted the slave trade does not mean blacks did not actually sell other blacks, because they did. Your slight of hand won't work. Black tribes were involved DIRECTLY in selling black slaves they had to white slavers. As a point in fact, you DISMISS the whites that died opposing slavery as to little to late or other bullshit. While claiming just because Black tribes also fought against slavery some how nullifies the fact that other black tribes sold black slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What it means is that the story whites are telling is not true. Now you need to accept that because there is ample evidence of how whites sold arms to certain African tribes so they could use them against tribes they were at war with, then pay them for the prisoners of war. There is also proof that whites instigated trouble between black tribes that ended up in battles where whites armed one side in order to get slaves. Africans wanted to trade for guns and whites would only accept slaves in order for Africans to get guns. Furthermore the Africans did not see themselves as one monolith, but they were nations and tribes no different than the Europeans. So Africans did not see themselves selling other Africans, they saw a Mali selling a Nigerian, no different than the British selling Irish as slaves in Europe.
> 
> So again, the story you want to create is disingenuous and that's just the way it is.
> 
> Last, I don't ignore shit. Whites created the problem here in America and you want to pretend that blacks ran around willingly capturing each other to sell to the white man and then the white man died to free us. But that's not how it went.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL you ADMIT black tribes sold blacks to slavers and claim me saying it is disingenuous. Now racist retard go back and CITE with a quote where I ever claimed black tribes did not fight to stop the slave trade. All I and others ever said was that YES IN FACT Black TRIBES sold black slaves to Slavers. You ignore the fact that blacks sold black slaves to slavers while claiming because some tribes fought against it that is all we need to know. Meanwhile you dismiss the same 400 years of whites fighting to end slavery. You dismiss 600000 dead white people fighting a war that ended slavery here. You ignore all the whites that worked tirelessly to free black slaves in the US and around the world. You dismiss all the whites that died before the civil war fighting slavery. Like I said you are a racist and can not see past skin color.
Click to expand...


You do understand what disingenuous means don't you. It means the story is dishonest or lacking in candor. You say blacks sold other blacks, but when you consider how the sales were made, mostly under duress, situations created by outside forces instigating strife, blackmail or extortion by refusing to sell guns unless whites got bodies, all of these things you do not dare mention and try creating s story whereby blacks just sold other blacks wantonly and with no regard is dishonest. I don't miss 400 years of whites fighting against slavery because it did not happen that way. I don't ignore the whites who worked tirelessly because they were very few in number and you want to conflate the numbers. I don't dismiss 600,000 dead people including the 40,000 dead blacks or the generations of blacks before them that you ignore who really died fighting for freedom that really never happened for blacks after the civil war ended.

Me seeing skin color doesn't make me a racist. Your lying about the role whites had in this is what racists do. If whites died to make us free, then explain why blacks were still in slavery but it was called share cropping and convict labor,. Explain the vagrancy laws and black codes, explain the Plessy v. Ferguson decision, explain how Rutherford Hayes made an agreement with southern democrats to remove the military out of the south thus ending reconstruction. Explain how republican justices led the nullification of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments in the civil rights cases. You talk all that white racist you blacks need to be grateful to whites for freeing you bullshit and I'm not going to be grateful. Because whites didn't die to free us, they did not die fighting against slavery, they did not fighting for 400 years against slavery, and that's just the way it is.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ohh I see you have a laundry list of EXCUSES for why black tribes sold slaves. You of course realize that black tribes had been taking slaves for about a 1000 years by then and simply found a more profitable way to use them? That IN FACT some blacks STILL TO THIS DAY ENSLAVE other blacks? What is your excuse for THAT?


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Ohh I see you have a laundry list of EXCUSES for why black tribes sold slaves. You of course realize that black tribes had been taking slaves for about a 1000 years by then and simply found a more profitable way to use them? That IN FACT some blacks STILL TO THIS DAY ENSLAVE other blacks? What is your excuse for THAT?


If they were excuses I wouldn't be making them. But what they show is what you don't want to see. Therefore you try dismissing it. Whites had slaves for the same 1000 years.  Still to this day whites enslave other whites. But you see, the deal here is that blacks slaves in Africa somehow could get out of slavery by repaying their debt or serving their time for crimes committed. They could own property and purchase their freedom and some even became kings. I don't think a serf was able to do that. Now would you like to talk about what happened to blacks after slavery ended? Or did blacks create Jim Crow segregation too?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh I see you have a laundry list of EXCUSES for why black tribes sold slaves. You of course realize that black tribes had been taking slaves for about a 1000 years by then and simply found a more profitable way to use them? That IN FACT some blacks STILL TO THIS DAY ENSLAVE other blacks? What is your excuse for THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> If they were excuses I wouldn't be making them. But what they show is what you don't want to see. Therefore you try dismissing it. Whites had slaves for the same 1000 years.  Still to this day whites enslave other whites. But you see, the deal here is that blacks slaves in Africa somehow could get out of slavery by repaying their debt or serving their time for crimes committed. They could own property and purchase their freedom and some even became kings. I don't think a serf was able to do that. Now would you like to talk about what happened to blacks after slavery ended? Or did blacks create Jim Crow segregation too?
Click to expand...

LOL more excuses, just accept the fact you are racist and whites for you are the boggy man.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh I see you have a laundry list of EXCUSES for why black tribes sold slaves. You of course realize that black tribes had been taking slaves for about a 1000 years by then and simply found a more profitable way to use them? That IN FACT some blacks STILL TO THIS DAY ENSLAVE other blacks? What is your excuse for THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> If they were excuses I wouldn't be making them. But what they show is what you don't want to see. Therefore you try dismissing it. Whites had slaves for the same 1000 years.  Still to this day whites enslave other whites. But you see, the deal here is that blacks slaves in Africa somehow could get out of slavery by repaying their debt or serving their time for crimes committed. They could own property and purchase their freedom and some even became kings. I don't think a serf was able to do that. Now would you like to talk about what happened to blacks after slavery ended? Or did blacks create Jim Crow segregation too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL more excuses, just accept the fact you are racist and whites for you are the boggy man.
Click to expand...


The only excuse being made is blacks sold each other into slavery. A black Ugandan doesn't consider himself the same as a black Algerian. This is another reason why I say your story is disingenuous. So why did whites buy the slaves? They didn't have to retardedsgt. WHY DIDN'T THEY ENSLAVE THEIR OWN?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
Click to expand...



"America as a whole"?

Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.

Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.

At all.

But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.

The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

daveman said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
Click to expand...

I figured yo sissified ass would stick your fingers in your ears and pretend reality doesn't exist....

You dic suckers lost back then and you continue to lose now ..so much so that you can't even admit that the only one who glorifies and romanticizes the cause of the "Cons"  back then are "Cons" of today..cons as in conservative....it was conservatives who felt the need to come up with the lost cause strategy to try to water down their own abject racism 

I damn sure don't see these flags at any Bernie rallies...but I damn sure see them at all the Trump rallies


----------



## rightwinger

Grumblenuts said:


> So looks like no First Black Republican Presidential Nominees anytime soon..



They have a lot of white, male Christians they have to consider first


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

RetiredGySgt said:


> Just because blacks resisted the slave trade does not mean blacks did not actually sell other blacks, because they did. Your slight of hand won't work. Black tribes were involved DIRECTLY in selling black slaves they had to white slavers. As a point in fact, you DISMISS the whites that died opposing slavery as to little to late or other bullshit. While claiming just because Black tribes also fought against slavery some how nullifies the fact that other black tribes sold black slaves.


On a post asking about possible up and coming black republican Presidential candidates (of which you have not named any) - morons like you see it as an opportunity to racist-splain slavery ...as if in your mind, this is in any way related to a black person being nominated for president...

If I had asked about a woman being nominated president, would you be trying to explain away conservatives opposition to women not being considered property and voting??


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag.
> 
> You are rather slow, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love that flag
Click to expand...

That's because you're racist.


----------



## Faun

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> The conservative south remains the most racist part of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
Click to expand...

Why would I lie to them like that?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your pretense of missing the last 150 years of history, is not credible.
> 
> 
> The flag has been accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> So, that is you failing to support your claim that the South is the most racist portion of the country.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
Click to expand...




The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin, 


as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*

Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
Click to expand...


Harmless symbol


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harmless symbol
Click to expand...



Why do you defer to THAT guy and not the Union Veterans from the blue and grey gettysberg reunion?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
Click to expand...

So was Hogan's Heroes.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Hogan's Heroes.
Click to expand...




I'm sorry, I don't see how what you posted, related to my post, in any way. 


Hogan's Heroes, the heroes was the POW, allied troops from America, or American allies, who were fighting the Nazis and were captured, and yet, continued to fight the Nazis.


The Nazis of the show, were all shown, as negative characters, with very little if ANY redeeming qualities.



Can you spell out your point, cause I don't see it at all?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Hogan's Heroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't see how what you posted, related to my post, in any way.
> 
> 
> Hogan's Heroes, the heroes was the POW, allied troops from America, or American allies, who were fighting the Nazis and were captured, and yet, continued to fight the Nazis.
> 
> 
> The Nazis of the show, were all shown, as negative characters, with very little if ANY redeeming qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell out your point, cause I don't see it at all?
Click to expand...

Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harmless symbol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you defer to THAT guy and not the Union Veterans from the blue and grey gettysberg reunion?
Click to expand...

Because THAT guy symbolizes why the Confederate flag is so offensive. 
After a relatively short war, that flag came to represent oppression of Civil Rights. 

People who are marching to VOTE get faced with morons who wave that flag to remind them of their real status in our society.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Hogan's Heroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't see how what you posted, related to my post, in any way.
> 
> 
> Hogan's Heroes, the heroes was the POW, allied troops from America, or American allies, who were fighting the Nazis and were captured, and yet, continued to fight the Nazis.
> 
> 
> The Nazis of the show, were all shown, as negative characters, with very little if ANY redeeming qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell out your point, cause I don't see it at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
Click to expand...



Correct. 

And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.



The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,


but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.



That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.


You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.


Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,


is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them. 



ON false grounds.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So was Hogan's Heroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't see how what you posted, related to my post, in any way.
> 
> 
> Hogan's Heroes, the heroes was the POW, allied troops from America, or American allies, who were fighting the Nazis and were captured, and yet, continued to fight the Nazis.
> 
> 
> The Nazis of the show, were all shown, as negative characters, with very little if ANY redeeming qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell out your point, cause I don't see it at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
Click to expand...

LOL 

Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harmless symbol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you defer to THAT guy and not the Union Veterans from the blue and grey gettysberg reunion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because THAT guy symbolizes why the Confederate flag is so offensive.
> After a relatively short war, that flag came to represent oppression of Civil Rights.
> 
> People who are marching to VOTE get faced with morons who wave that flag to remind them of their real status in our society.
Click to expand...




Yes, I get that that guy and some others like him, that was, even still IS, what they want it to symbolize.


But so many others, from the Union vets of the Civil war, to hundreds of millions of southerns over the last 5 generations, to the fans of the Dukes of Hazzard, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.

My question to you, which you did not address, is WHY DO YOU CHOOSE THE ONE SIDE, INSTEAD OF THE OTHER  SIDE?


*AND*, further more, why do you pretend that the people that disagree with you on what the flag represents, ie those that consider it a harmless symbol of regional pride, why do you attack them as though they are using it to celebrate YOUR belief of that symbol?


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag.
> 
> You are rather slow, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love that flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you're racist.
Click to expand...

Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education


----------



## Grumblenuts

Jitss617 said:


> get a education


*An* education, jizzwad.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> 
> 
> We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag.
> 
> You are rather slow, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love that flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you're racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
Click to expand...

_*"get a education"*_

LOLOL 

These jokes just write themselves. 




And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.


----------



## Grumblenuts

You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.


----------



## Jitss617

Grumblenuts said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> get a education
> 
> 
> 
> *An* education, jizzwad.
Click to expand...

Yes that to.. democrats get a education lol


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We aren’t rebranding America.. our culture is what made it strong will never change
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag.
> 
> You are rather slow, aren't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I love that flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you're racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
Click to expand...

Lol most  of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said America as a country is rebranding? I was referring to the confederate flag.
> 
> You are rather slow, aren't you?
> 
> 
> 
> I love that flag
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's because you're racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
Click to expand...

So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.

Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love that flag
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you're racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
Click to expand...


The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Yes that to.. democrats get a education lol


You mean an education like yours which produces a sentence with 7 words and one expression where you make 7 grammatical/spelling mistakes.

Who wants to be a dumbass con like you?

But g'head, tell the forum again how slavery wasn't the primary issue for the Civil War...

_"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_​


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love that flag
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you're racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
Click to expand...

How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you're racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
Click to expand...

Link, I said most,, and many in 1860 the blacks were family, and were terrified of what Democrats would’ve did if the slaves left their houses. As free


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's because you're racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
Click to expand...

Why lie?

Slavery was the primary issue.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that to.. democrats get a education lol
> 
> 
> 
> You mean an education like yours which produces a sentence with 7 words and one expression where you make 7 grammatical/spelling mistakes.
> 
> Who wants to be a dumbass con like you?
> 
> But g'head, tell the forum again how slavery wasn't the primary issue for the Civil War...
> 
> _"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_​
Click to expand...

Yes that’s elite democrats who were down south at the time,, it didn’t represent the people of the south.. just like now Democrats are in the north all Kreiser racial oppression all urban sleep plantations are run by democrats I am not with Democrats, They don’t represent me


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> 
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
Click to expand...

Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> 
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
Click to expand...


https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery

Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.


----------



## Grumblenuts

It enjoys any attention, even answers to "jizzwad." Nuff said.


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
Click to expand...

Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that to.. democrats get a education lol
> 
> 
> 
> You mean an education like yours which produces a sentence with 7 words and one expression where you make 7 grammatical/spelling mistakes.
> 
> Who wants to be a dumbass con like you?
> 
> But g'head, tell the forum again how slavery wasn't the primary issue for the Civil War...
> 
> _"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that’s elite democrats who were down south at the time,, it didn’t represent the people of the south.. just like now Democrats are in the north all Kreiser racial oppression all urban sleep plantations are run by democrats I am not with Democrats, They don’t represent me
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

The people didn't elect representatives to represent them?

You're actually getting dumber. 

_"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."_​


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> 
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
Click to expand...

Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
Click to expand...


What you stated was that "90% of the south did not own slaves"...you did not state that "most did not own slaves".

Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that to.. democrats get a education lol
> 
> 
> 
> You mean an education like yours which produces a sentence with 7 words and one expression where you make 7 grammatical/spelling mistakes.
> 
> Who wants to be a dumbass con like you?
> 
> But g'head, tell the forum again how slavery wasn't the primary issue for the Civil War...
> 
> _"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that’s elite democrats who were down south at the time,, it didn’t represent the people of the south.. just like now Democrats are in the north all Kreiser racial oppression all urban sleep plantations are run by democrats I am not with Democrats, They don’t represent me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The people didn't elect representatives to represent them?
> 
> You're actually getting dumber.
> 
> _"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."_​
Click to expand...


we have urban slave plantation’s today with Democrats have enforced new Jim Crowe laws that affect the education system that affect jobs that affect economic mobility.. let’s end it today.. are you with me?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.



What good is a dictionary to you? You don't use the full definition anyway.


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
Click to expand...




katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
Click to expand...

I said most


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a dictionary to you? You don't adhere to the full definition anyway.
Click to expand...

You mean treat all the meanings listed as one and the same? Yeah, you really arrived late to the brain line.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis. 

And what made those blacks free...?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> 
> 
> So was Hogan's Heroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't see how what you posted, related to my post, in any way.
> 
> 
> Hogan's Heroes, the heroes was the POW, allied troops from America, or American allies, who were fighting the Nazis and were captured, and yet, continued to fight the Nazis.
> 
> 
> The Nazis of the show, were all shown, as negative characters, with very little if ANY redeeming qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell out your point, cause I don't see it at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
Click to expand...




My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.



That is my point. 


Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
Click to expand...

No, ya raging dumbfuck,  I'm saying slavery was the reason the south seceded. They even said it was, despite your flailing attempts to rewrite history.

_The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. *Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.*_​


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that to.. democrats get a education lol
> 
> 
> 
> You mean an education like yours which produces a sentence with 7 words and one expression where you make 7 grammatical/spelling mistakes.
> 
> Who wants to be a dumbass con like you?
> 
> But g'head, tell the forum again how slavery wasn't the primary issue for the Civil War...
> 
> _"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that’s elite democrats who were down south at the time,, it didn’t represent the people of the south.. just like now Democrats are in the north all Kreiser racial oppression all urban sleep plantations are run by democrats I am not with Democrats, They don’t represent me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The people didn't elect representatives to represent them?
> 
> You're actually getting dumber.
> 
> _"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have urban slave plantation’s today with Democrats have enforced new Jim Crowe laws that affect the education system that affect jobs that affect economic mobility.. let’s end it today.. are you with me?
Click to expand...

You're a proven racist. Meaning anything you claim or propose is rooted in racism. And you've been caught lying repeatedly to further your racist agenda. Meaning whatever you suggest has an underlying purpose to perpetuate racism. So no, I neither accept your false premises nor agree with your proposals.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
Click to expand...

It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS 

GET AN EDUCATION !


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, ya raging dumbfuck,  I'm saying slavery was the reason the south seceded. They even said it was, despite your flailing attempts to rewrite history.
> 
> _The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. *Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.*_​
Click to expand...

YES ELITE DEMOCRATS! You moron! Lol not common southerners


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that to.. democrats get a education lol
> 
> 
> 
> You mean an education like yours which produces a sentence with 7 words and one expression where you make 7 grammatical/spelling mistakes.
> 
> Who wants to be a dumbass con like you?
> 
> But g'head, tell the forum again how slavery wasn't the primary issue for the Civil War...
> 
> _"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes that’s elite democrats who were down south at the time,, it didn’t represent the people of the south.. just like now Democrats are in the north all Kreiser racial oppression all urban sleep plantations are run by democrats I am not with Democrats, They don’t represent me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The people didn't elect representatives to represent them?
> 
> You're actually getting dumber.
> 
> _"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have urban slave plantation’s today with Democrats have enforced new Jim Crowe laws that affect the education system that affect jobs that affect economic mobility.. let’s end it today.. are you with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a proven racist. Meaning anything you claim or propose is rooted in racism. And you've been caught lying repeatedly to further your racist agenda. Meaning whatever you suggest has an underlying purpose to perpetuate racism. So no, I neither accept your false premises nor agree with your proposals.
Click to expand...

It’s a fact I see it every day the common black in Boston can’t talk properly! I can can barely talk properly because I went to black schools Democrats did nothing and continue to do nothing! They Are leading them back into slavery they’re building dozens of new government controlled housing projects to move these people in that is control


----------



## Jitss617

Booker T. Washington noted, after the initial joy, many slaves worried about what they would do. If they had good masters, many stayed on the plantation, continued to work and received the food, clothing, shelter and healthcare they were provided as slaves. Some masters did not tell their slaves they were free, and this was not all bad for the slaves. Many slaves wanted to leave their plantations to prove they were free, but then found the same work at neighboring plantations.

About 25% of the slaves who chose to follow the Union Army died.


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Accepted by who? Primarily by racists?
> 
> Ask most blacks how they feel about it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
Click to expand...


One buffoonish TV program portraying a "lighter side"  does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
Click to expand...

_*"I said most"*_

Oh? Do you deny saying "90%" before changing that to "most?"



Jitss617 said:


> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol


----------



## Jitss617

According to historian of the South, Eugene Genovese, about fifteen percent of slaves stayed with their masters.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"I said most"*_
> 
> Oh? Do you deny saying "90%" before changing that to "most?"
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

It says most,, can you read?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That flag represents slavery and white supremacy. It has done so for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
Click to expand...




The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.


THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"I said most"*_
> 
> Oh? Do you deny saying "90%" before changing that to "most?"
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Exactly!


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So was Hogan's Heroes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't see how what you posted, related to my post, in any way.
> 
> 
> Hogan's Heroes, the heroes was the POW, allied troops from America, or American allies, who were fighting the Nazis and were captured, and yet, continued to fight the Nazis.
> 
> 
> The Nazis of the show, were all shown, as negative characters, with very little if ANY redeeming qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell out your point, cause I don't see it at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
Click to expand...

The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.


----------



## Jitss617

Why do you democrats want to lie about the south!! Many slaves returned HOME to their family!
According to historian of the South, Eugene Genovese, about fifteen percent of slaves stayed with their masters.

Southerners wanted a different end to slavery than the north they also wanted to control the economics of the south that’s the reason for the war. Robert E Lee had the first all black school it is goddamn living room! After the war these are not racist people


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't see how what you posted, related to my post, in any way.
> 
> 
> Hogan's Heroes, the heroes was the POW, allied troops from America, or American allies, who were fighting the Nazis and were captured, and yet, continued to fight the Nazis.
> 
> 
> The Nazis of the show, were all shown, as negative characters, with very little if ANY redeeming qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell out your point, cause I don't see it at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
Click to expand...

1 blacks originally enslaved black people and sold them
2. Free blacks owned  slaves in America
3. Many blacks returned home to their masters after the war
4. Many blacks and people of color fought for the Confederacy because they all knew the south was not racist lol YOU MORONS. STOP LYING


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I don't see how what you posted, related to my post, in any way.
> 
> 
> Hogan's Heroes, the heroes was the POW, allied troops from America, or American allies, who were fighting the Nazis and were captured, and yet, continued to fight the Nazis.
> 
> 
> The Nazis of the show, were all shown, as negative characters, with very little if ANY redeeming qualities.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you spell out your point, cause I don't see it at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
Click to expand...



The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.


AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.


THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.


Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.


----------



## Jitss617

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
Click to expand...

They are just democrats that want to control the narrative of south.. fortunate for us we have history on our side with facts,  no matter how far Google wants to hide the facts this still can be found, we got quotes from slaves. We have Booker T. Washington the vehemently disagreed with northern blacks about how the south treated blacks... Booker T. Washington actually felt more comfortable around Southerners then he did around northern black people, BECAUSE THEY LIED


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We live in an era of rebranding and makeover marketing.
> 
> What  the symbol stands for has never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
Click to expand...


I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.

On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".

As I said before, fly it proudly. 

Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Confederate flag on 'Hazzard' car shows 'good old boy integrity'
In other words, from none to fake. It depicted southerners as dumb and kept smashing the "General Lee" to bits, along with your racist flag which was protested immediately and has been ever since.


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
Click to expand...

It was a very popular American show not just southern everybody in America love that show


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
Click to expand...

Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...

_"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
Click to expand...




The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.


That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.


You keep pretending to not get that.


That is the history of this.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, ya raging dumbfuck,  I'm saying slavery was the reason the south seceded. They even said it was, despite your flailing attempts to rewrite history.
> 
> _The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. *Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES ELITE DEMOCRATS! You moron! Lol not common southerners
Click to expand...

Those were the elected representatives of those "common southerners."


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean an education like yours which produces a sentence with 7 words and one expression where you make 7 grammatical/spelling mistakes.
> 
> Who wants to be a dumbass con like you?
> 
> But g'head, tell the forum again how slavery wasn't the primary issue for the Civil War...
> 
> _"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_​
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that’s elite democrats who were down south at the time,, it didn’t represent the people of the south.. just like now Democrats are in the north all Kreiser racial oppression all urban sleep plantations are run by democrats I am not with Democrats, They don’t represent me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The people didn't elect representatives to represent them?
> 
> You're actually getting dumber.
> 
> _"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have urban slave plantation’s today with Democrats have enforced new Jim Crowe laws that affect the education system that affect jobs that affect economic mobility.. let’s end it today.. are you with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a proven racist. Meaning anything you claim or propose is rooted in racism. And you've been caught lying repeatedly to further your racist agenda. Meaning whatever you suggest has an underlying purpose to perpetuate racism. So no, I neither accept your false premises nor agree with your proposals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a fact I see it every day the common black in Boston can’t talk properly! I can can barely talk properly because I went to black schools Democrats did nothing and continue to do nothing! They Are leading them back into slavery they’re building dozens of new government controlled housing projects to move these people in that is control
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Shit, you can't "speak" proper English on this forum. And you're talking about the way others speak??


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
Click to expand...

It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?

why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?

why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?

why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?

your narrative makes no sense backed by facts


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Booker T. Washington noted, after the initial joy, many slaves worried about what they would do. If they had good masters, many stayed on the plantation, continued to work and received the food, clothing, shelter and healthcare they were provided as slaves. Some masters did not tell their slaves they were free, and this was not all bad for the slaves. Many slaves wanted to leave their plantations to prove they were free, but then found the same work at neighboring plantations.
> 
> About 25% of the slaves who chose to follow the Union Army died.


Still waiting for you to answer... what made those blacks free...?


----------



## Correll

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a very popular American shell not just southern everybody in America love that show
Click to expand...



He knows that. He is just pretending not to, to dodge the point, and thus hide from the Truth.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"I said most"*_
> 
> Oh? Do you deny saying "90%" before changing that to "most?"
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says most,, can you read?
Click to expand...

I quoted you first saying "90%" before you changed it to "most."

Why are you afraid to say, "yes" or "no," to my question.... do you deny posting "90%" before changing it to "most?" What does your fear reveal...?


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, ya raging dumbfuck,  I'm saying slavery was the reason the south seceded. They even said it was, despite your flailing attempts to rewrite history.
> 
> _The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the Acts of Congress or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from service or labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Constitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation; but the current of anti-slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own law and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. *Thus the constituted compact has been deliberately broken and disregarded by the non-slaveholding States, and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation.*_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YES ELITE DEMOCRATS! You moron! Lol not common southerners
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those were the elected representatives of those "common southerners."
Click to expand...

No it was rich white democrats influencing votes in the south, just like the CFR controls our foreign influence, Just like rich democrats people control 99% of our fake news media


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that’s elite democrats who were down south at the time,, it didn’t represent the people of the south.. just like now Democrats are in the north all Kreiser racial oppression all urban sleep plantations are run by democrats I am not with Democrats, They don’t represent me
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The people didn't elect representatives to represent them?
> 
> You're actually getting dumber.
> 
> _"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have urban slave plantation’s today with Democrats have enforced new Jim Crowe laws that affect the education system that affect jobs that affect economic mobility.. let’s end it today.. are you with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a proven racist. Meaning anything you claim or propose is rooted in racism. And you've been caught lying repeatedly to further your racist agenda. Meaning whatever you suggest has an underlying purpose to perpetuate racism. So no, I neither accept your false premises nor agree with your proposals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a fact I see it every day the common black in Boston can’t talk properly! I can can barely talk properly because I went to black schools Democrats did nothing and continue to do nothing! They Are leading them back into slavery they’re building dozens of new government controlled housing projects to move these people in that is control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Shit, you can't "speak" proper English on this forum. And you're talking about the way others speak??
Click to expand...

Lol I’m wiping the floor with you lol you should be embarrassed lol


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 blacks originally enslaved black people and sold them
> 2. Free blacks owned  slaves in America
> 3. Many blacks returned home to their masters after the war
> 4. Many blacks and people of color fought for the Confederacy because they all knew the south was not racist lol YOU MORONS. STOP LYING
Click to expand...

LOL

None of that alters the reality the south seceded to keep slavery legal.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Booker T. Washington noted, after the initial joy, many slaves worried about what they would do. If they had good masters, many stayed on the plantation, continued to work and received the food, clothing, shelter and healthcare they were provided as slaves. Some masters did not tell their slaves they were free, and this was not all bad for the slaves. Many slaves wanted to leave their plantations to prove they were free, but then found the same work at neighboring plantations.
> 
> About 25% of the slaves who chose to follow the Union Army died.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to answer... what made those blacks free...?
Click to expand...

The north’s winning of the war, part of it was to free black slaves. Just as the south would have, but in a different way.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"I said most"*_
> 
> Oh? Do you deny saying "90%" before changing that to "most?"
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says most,, can you read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted you first saying "90%" before you changed it to "most."
> 
> Why are you afraid to say, "yes" or "no," to my question.... do you deny posting "90%" before changing it to "most?" What does your fear reveal...?
Click to expand...

It says most.. are you on crack?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
Click to expand...

 
I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.

Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG. 

I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's. 

I know what it stood for.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 blacks originally enslaved black people and sold them
> 2. Free blacks owned  slaves in America
> 3. Many blacks returned home to their masters after the war
> 4. Many blacks and people of color fought for the Confederacy because they all knew the south was not racist lol YOU MORONS. STOP LYING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> None of that alters the reality the south seceded to keep slavery legal.
Click to expand...

And why do you leave our the rest of the context? Lol doesn’t fit your narrative?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
Click to expand...

_*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_

Holyfuckingshit 

The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
Click to expand...

Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
Click to expand...

The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
> If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?
> 
> why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?
> 
> why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?
> 
> why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?
> 
> your narrative makes no sense backed by facts
Click to expand...

For the same reason some Jews worked on the side of the nazis -- self preservation.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The people didn't elect representatives to represent them?
> 
> You're actually getting dumber.
> 
> _"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."_​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> we have urban slave plantation’s today with Democrats have enforced new Jim Crowe laws that affect the education system that affect jobs that affect economic mobility.. let’s end it today.. are you with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a proven racist. Meaning anything you claim or propose is rooted in racism. And you've been caught lying repeatedly to further your racist agenda. Meaning whatever you suggest has an underlying purpose to perpetuate racism. So no, I neither accept your false premises nor agree with your proposals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a fact I see it every day the common black in Boston can’t talk properly! I can can barely talk properly because I went to black schools Democrats did nothing and continue to do nothing! They Are leading them back into slavery they’re building dozens of new government controlled housing projects to move these people in that is control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Shit, you can't "speak" proper English on this forum. And you're talking about the way others speak??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I’m wiping the floor with you lol you should be embarrassed lol
Click to expand...

LOL 

Saying that in the stark face of the opposite is nothing short of laughable.

Tell me again how slavery wasn't the primary reason for secession...

_"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.

*Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.* That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."_​


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
> If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?
> 
> why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?
> 
> why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?
> 
> why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?
> 
> your narrative makes no sense backed by facts
Click to expand...

Im

You're a prolific IDIOT of the highest order. Runaway slaves were routinely whipped or killed, for even  attempting to escape.

There were bounties on slaves who escaped to freedom . They ran a risk of being returned to captivity. If a slave had two options, one to escape or one to remain, many elected to survive.

You are the dumbest stone to ever post in a public forum.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
Click to expand...

But you say nothing about the Archie Bunker type behavior coming from African-Americans.. do you even know what intersectionality is? That’s where whites are on the bottom of any opinion .. that’s pretty racist


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
> If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?
> 
> why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?
> 
> why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?
> 
> why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?
> 
> your narrative makes no sense backed by facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the same reason some Jews worked on the side of the nazis -- self preservation.
Click to expand...

The executioners of Jews were Jewish people they were generals in the nazi army.. glad you admit that


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many races fought for that flag, and still celebrate it .. Brazil’s Brown people celebrate it.. get a education
> 
> 
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
Click to expand...


It was written in the confederate constitution.

Confederate constitution,  *Article IV Section 3(3)
*
_The Confederate States may acquire new territory; and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States, lying without the limits of the several states; and may permit them, at such times, and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form states to be admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory, the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall be recognized and protected by Congress, and by the territorial government: and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories, shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the states or territories of the Confederate states_


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> we have urban slave plantation’s today with Democrats have enforced new Jim Crowe laws that affect the education system that affect jobs that affect economic mobility.. let’s end it today.. are you with me?
> 
> 
> 
> You're a proven racist. Meaning anything you claim or propose is rooted in racism. And you've been caught lying repeatedly to further your racist agenda. Meaning whatever you suggest has an underlying purpose to perpetuate racism. So no, I neither accept your false premises nor agree with your proposals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a fact I see it every day the common black in Boston can’t talk properly! I can can barely talk properly because I went to black schools Democrats did nothing and continue to do nothing! They Are leading them back into slavery they’re building dozens of new government controlled housing projects to move these people in that is control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Shit, you can't "speak" proper English on this forum. And you're talking about the way others speak??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I’m wiping the floor with you lol you should be embarrassed lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying that in the stark face of the opposite is nothing short of laughable.
> 
> Tell me again how slavery wasn't the primary reason for secession...
> 
> _"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.* That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."_​
Click to expand...

Is this the quote of 100% of the Southerners? Lol NOOOOO that is a quote from the elite Democrats.. most Southerners didn’t own slaves most slaves were part of Southers families they wanted a different end it was going to end it was not economically Realistic to keep slavery going


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"I said most"*_
> 
> Oh? Do you deny saying "90%" before changing that to "most?"
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says most,, can you read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted you first saying "90%" before you changed it to "most."
> 
> Why are you afraid to say, "yes" or "no," to my question.... do you deny posting "90%" before changing it to "most?" What does your fear reveal...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says most.. are you on crack?
Click to expand...

It says "most" *now because you changed it* from "90%."


Jitss617 said:


> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol


... don't fool yourself for a second that no one notices you don't deny changing it from "90%" to "most."


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
> If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?
> 
> why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?
> 
> why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?
> 
> why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?
> 
> your narrative makes no sense backed by facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im
> 
> You're a prolific IDIOT of the highest order. Runaway slaves were routinely whipped or killed, for even  attempting to escape.
> 
> There were bounties on slaves who escaped to freedom . They ran a risk of being returned to captivity. If a slave had two options, one to escape or one to remain, many elected to survive.
> 
> You are the dumbest stone to ever post in a public forum.
Click to expand...

And they’re still Whipped  and, beat up in the streets if they leave the Democratic Party what is your fucking point


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> _*"I said most"*_
> 
> Oh? Do you deny saying "90%" before changing that to "most?"
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says most,, can you read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I quoted you first saying "90%" before you changed it to "most."
> 
> Why are you afraid to say, "yes" or "no," to my question.... do you deny posting "90%" before changing it to "most?" What does your fear reveal...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says most.. are you on crack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says "most" *now because you changed it* from "90%."
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ... don't fool yourself for a second that no one notices you don't deny changing it from "90%" to "most."
Click to expand...

If the north was for the ending of slavery and the war started in 1861 why did Abraham Lincoln sign the emancipation in 1863?? Hmmmm lol


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
Click to expand...

Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
Click to expand...

Lmfao hahahahah you are full of shit! The war started not to end slavery! You idiot!


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
Click to expand...

Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.

For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.

Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.

To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.

“During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””

-FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?

Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.

Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.

Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.

The civil war was about keeping the Union together.

FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a proven racist. Meaning anything you claim or propose is rooted in racism. And you've been caught lying repeatedly to further your racist agenda. Meaning whatever you suggest has an underlying purpose to perpetuate racism. So no, I neither accept your false premises nor agree with your proposals.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a fact I see it every day the common black in Boston can’t talk properly! I can can barely talk properly because I went to black schools Democrats did nothing and continue to do nothing! They Are leading them back into slavery they’re building dozens of new government controlled housing projects to move these people in that is control
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Shit, you can't "speak" proper English on this forum. And you're talking about the way others speak??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I’m wiping the floor with you lol you should be embarrassed lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying that in the stark face of the opposite is nothing short of laughable.
> 
> Tell me again how slavery wasn't the primary reason for secession...
> 
> _"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.* That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the quote of 100% of the Southerners? Lol NOOOOO that is a quote from the elite Democrats.. most Southerners didn’t own slaves most slaves were part of Southers families they wanted a different end it was going to end it was not economically Realistic to keep slavery going
Click to expand...

Of course it's not the view of every southerner.  It was still done in their name whether they agreed with it or not.

And you say "most" now because even you know you were retarded to first say "90%."


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a fact I see it every day the common black in Boston can’t talk properly! I can can barely talk properly because I went to black schools Democrats did nothing and continue to do nothing! They Are leading them back into slavery they’re building dozens of new government controlled housing projects to move these people in that is control
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Shit, you can't "speak" proper English on this forum. And you're talking about the way others speak??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lol I’m wiping the floor with you lol you should be embarrassed lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying that in the stark face of the opposite is nothing short of laughable.
> 
> Tell me again how slavery wasn't the primary reason for secession...
> 
> _"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.* That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the quote of 100% of the Southerners? Lol NOOOOO that is a quote from the elite Democrats.. most Southerners didn’t own slaves most slaves were part of Southers families they wanted a different end it was going to end it was not economically Realistic to keep slavery going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's not the view of every southerner.  It was still done in their name whether they agreed with it or not.
> 
> And you say "most" now because even you know you were retarded to first say "90%."
Click to expand...

Yes by democrats


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lmfao hahahahah you are full of shit! The war started not to end slavery! You idiot!
Click to expand...

LOLOL 

Holyfuckingshit  

I never said _"the war started not to end slavery."_

You're such a flaming moron,  you're now arguing with your own hallucinations.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
Click to expand...

_*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_

The states' right to keep slavery legal.


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
Click to expand...


Carroll O'Connor himself was an anti racist and personally rejected the beliefs of Archie Bunker.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Shit, you can't "speak" proper English on this forum. And you're talking about the way others speak??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I’m wiping the floor with you lol you should be embarrassed lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying that in the stark face of the opposite is nothing short of laughable.
> 
> Tell me again how slavery wasn't the primary reason for secession...
> 
> _"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.* That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the quote of 100% of the Southerners? Lol NOOOOO that is a quote from the elite Democrats.. most Southerners didn’t own slaves most slaves were part of Southers families they wanted a different end it was going to end it was not economically Realistic to keep slavery going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's not the view of every southerner.  It was still done in their name whether they agreed with it or not.
> 
> And you say "most" now because even you know you were retarded to first say "90%."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes by democrats
Click to expand...

The region now being held mostly by Republicans. Conservatives have always been the ideology of racism regardless of which political party they favored.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lmfao hahahahah you are full of shit! The war started not to end slavery! You idiot!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> I never said _"the war started not to end slavery."_
> 
> You're such a flaming moron,  you're now arguing with your own hallucinations.
Click to expand...

Ok good so you admit it,, now do you admit the south would have eventually ended slavery yes or no?


----------



## Faun

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carroll O'Connor himself was an anti racist and personally rejected the beliefs of Archie Bunker.
Click to expand...

I would hope so. But according to Correll's absurd position, the nation embraced bigotry and racism because it was a popular show which utilized bigotry and racism as a prop.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> 
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_
> 
> The states' right to keep slavery legal.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t about slavery again


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
Click to expand...



Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.


It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol I’m wiping the floor with you lol you should be embarrassed lol
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying that in the stark face of the opposite is nothing short of laughable.
> 
> Tell me again how slavery wasn't the primary reason for secession...
> 
> _"In the momentous step which our State has taken of dissolving its connection with the government of which we so long formed a part, it is but just that we should declare the prominent reasons which have induced our course.
> 
> *Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world.* Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. *There was no choice left us but submission to the mandates of abolition, or a dissolution of the Union, whose principles had been subverted to work out our ruin.* That we do not overstate the dangers to our institution, a reference to a few facts will sufficiently prove."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is this the quote of 100% of the Southerners? Lol NOOOOO that is a quote from the elite Democrats.. most Southerners didn’t own slaves most slaves were part of Southers families they wanted a different end it was going to end it was not economically Realistic to keep slavery going
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's not the view of every southerner.  It was still done in their name whether they agreed with it or not.
> 
> And you say "most" now because even you know you were retarded to first say "90%."
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes by democrats
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The region now being held mostly by Republicans. Conservatives have always been the ideology of racism regardless of which political party they favored.
Click to expand...

All crimes of racial oppression have only come from town run by democrats,, Baltimore Detroit Chicago Boston St. Louis Louisiana Baton Rouge all democratic run mayors all blue city Council.. i’ll close the racial oppression have only come from towns run by democrats.. NOT REPUBLICANS


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> .....
Click to expand...




In the story told by the tv show, the main characters did it. And the nation as a whole, had no problem with them doing that, and being portrayed by the show as heroes.

Because the symbols had generations ago, stopped being about secession and slavery and long been "rebranded" as a harmless symbol of regional pride.


IF, as  you claim, those symbols were seen by the nation as a whole, as symbols of secession and slavery and racism, the viewing audience would never have accepted them as the clean, wholesome characters they were presented as.


----------



## rightwinger

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*"get a education"*_
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> These jokes just write themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And dumbass, nothing alters the reality that the south fought for independence so that they could keep their slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
Click to expand...

No more so than a pet or favorite horse. 

If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will


----------



## Jitss617

rightwinger said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
Click to expand...

Wow that was racist, calling Ms Dunn a liar? Booker T. Washington was a liar? Is that where you call black people you disagree with farm animals? Is that where you call black people you disagree with farm animals


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
Click to expand...




All in the Family was a much more serious and nuanced show than The Dukes of Hazzard. Archie was initially intended to be the bad guy, but the hard working man, supporting not only his wife, but his child and her "meathead" husband, was too sympathetic to too many people. THe show quickly started walking back his bigotry and softening and growing his character over time. 


And nothing in his character was as heinous as you claim the Confederate Flag is, anyways. And the Duke Boys, were never shown growing out of their regional pride, or their celebration of their southern heritage with the Confederate Flag staying on the top of the General Lee, that whole series.


The easy acceptance of the Duke Boys, with their confederate flag, painted on top of their car, The General Lee, shows that those symbols had long ago been "rebranded" as harmless symbols of regional pride.


----------



## Correll

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you say nothing about the Archie Bunker type behavior coming from African-Americans.. do you even know what intersectionality is? That’s where whites are on the bottom of any opinion .. that’s pretty racist
Click to expand...



IMO, most of that behavior, actually comes from white liberals. Just saying. 


MOST. Not all.


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carroll O'Connor himself was an anti racist and personally rejected the beliefs of Archie Bunker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would hope so. But according to Correll's absurd position, the nation embraced bigotry and racism because it was a popular show which utilized bigotry and racism as a prop.
Click to expand...


According to Correll there is a national policy of racial discrimination against whites. He's an idiot.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
Click to expand...


"Nationwide viewing audience"? 

We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run. 

Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.

If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic. 

Certainly not a nationwide audience.


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lol 90% of the south never even seen a slave lol you moron! Keep lying ,, get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
Click to expand...


Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
Click to expand...


I didn't watch it.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carroll O'Connor himself was an anti racist and personally rejected the beliefs of Archie Bunker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would hope so. But according to Correll's absurd position, the nation embraced bigotry and racism because it was a popular show which utilized bigotry and racism as a prop.
Click to expand...




Your dishonesty in lying about what my point is, is because you know that if you are honest about what my point is, 


that you cannot refute it.



You are knowingly supporting a position that you know is based on lies.


----------



## rightwinger

Jitss617 said:


> According to historian of the South, Eugene Genovese, about fifteen percent of slaves stayed with their masters.





Open a lions cage and the lion will go back into its cage. It is what is most familiar


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't watch it.
Click to expand...


I'm sure that you did not. This is a ludicrous argument.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Carroll O'Connor himself was an anti racist and personally rejected the beliefs of Archie Bunker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I would hope so. But according to Correll's absurd position, the nation embraced bigotry and racism because it was a popular show which utilized bigotry and racism as a prop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Correll there is a national policy of racial discrimination against whites. He's an idiot.
Click to expand...



Any attempt to direct resources to one group, to make up for past discrimination, is by the nature of limited resources, discriminating against other groups, that also need those resources.


Be it money, or jobs, or school slots, or promotions.



Only an idiot, can not figure that out. 


BTW, every white lib that reads you claiming otherwise, and lets your stupidity pass, is doing so because he or she thinks that you are not capable of doing better. 


Because of your race.


----------



## Jitss617

rightwinger said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to historian of the South, Eugene Genovese, about fifteen percent of slaves stayed with their masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a lions cage and the lion will go back into its cage. It is what is most familiar
Click to expand...

Huh are you honestly comparing blacks to zoo animals!? For Christ sakes democrats try to hide your racism!


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
Click to expand...




By nationwide viewing audience I am not talking about actual fans of the show, but all the people who were aware of the shows existence enough to know about the General Lee and the Good Ole Boys, Bo and Luke.


You and your peers might not have liked the show, nor wanted to hang around the South, but you raised no fuss about the use of supposedly Evul symbols, representing slavery and treason and racism, 


because you knew that that was not the intent of the show producers, nor the characters in the story.



If you had made a fuss, you would have been laughed at. 



Because those symbols had been "rebranded" generations before you were born, and accepted as harmless symbols of regional pride, by the very veterans that fought to defeat the Confederacy.









And the show's fan base was NOT limited to the South, or to any "certain demographic". It was a huge nation wide hit.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_
> 
> The states' right to keep slavery legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn’t about slavery again View attachment 313395
Click to expand...

As you've been shown repeatedly,  but are too stupid to absorb, the south fought for independence so they could keep their slaves....

_"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.

The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.

The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.

It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.

It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.

It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.

It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.

It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."_​


----------



## Correll

Jitss617 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to historian of the South, Eugene Genovese, about fifteen percent of slaves stayed with their masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a lions cage and the lion will go back into its cage. It is what is most familiar
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Huh are you honestly comparing blacks to zoo animals!? For Christ sakes democrats try to hide your racism!
Click to expand...




Yeah, I caught that too. If any republican said such a thing, we would be seeing it in meme, 100 years from now. 


But libs, if it weren't for double standards, they would have no standards at all.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_
> 
> The states' right to keep slavery legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn’t about slavery again View attachment 313395
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been shown repeatedly,  but are too stupid to absorb, the south fought for independence so they could keep their slaves....
> 
> _"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."_​
Click to expand...

You’re posting quotes and statements from elite Democrats you’re not getting any comments from the majority sediments of the Southerners.. The war was not started because of the ending of slavery,, As you admitted. lol 

Now are you saying the south wouldn’t have ended slavery on its own yes or no answer the question you fucking loser


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_
> 
> The states' right to keep slavery legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn’t about slavery again View attachment 313395
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been shown repeatedly,  but are too stupid to absorb, the south fought for independence so they could keep their slaves....
> 
> _"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."_​
Click to expand...



Among other issues, you mean, right?


And it is funny the way you can't address his quotes from LIncoln and the Confederate President.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_
> 
> The states' right to keep slavery legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn’t about slavery again View attachment 313395
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been shown repeatedly,  but are too stupid to absorb, the south fought for independence so they could keep their slaves....
> 
> _"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."_​
Click to expand...

Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.

Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.

The civil war was about keeping the Union together.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the story told by the tv show, the main characters did it. And the nation as a whole, had no problem with them doing that, and being portrayed by the show as heroes.
> 
> Because the symbols had generations ago, stopped being about secession and slavery and long been "rebranded" as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> IF, as  you claim, those symbols were seen by the nation as a whole, as symbols of secession and slavery and racism, the viewing audience would never have accepted them as the clean, wholesome characters they were presented as.
Click to expand...

_*"IF, as  you claim, those symbols were seen by the nation as a whole, as symbols of secession and slavery and racism..."*_

In reality, from which you are clearly divorced, I never claimed any such thing. I stated those were props developed by the show to demonstrate location. I never said they were received as symbols of slavery by the viewing audience.  You made that up because fighting strawmen is the only way you feel you can win an argument. And for the record, I also never said they were seen as symbols of regional pride.


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to historian of the South, Eugene Genovese, about fifteen percent of slaves stayed with their masters.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Open a lions cage and the lion will go back into its cage. It is what is most familiar
Click to expand...


According to Carol Anderson, blacks had no other choice because the supreme court nullified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments and blacks had no rights. They were being slaughtered all over the south and states rights eliminated their right to own land, work or even move where they pleased.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the story told by the tv show, the main characters did it. And the nation as a whole, had no problem with them doing that, and being portrayed by the show as heroes.
> 
> Because the symbols had generations ago, stopped being about secession and slavery and long been "rebranded" as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> IF, as  you claim, those symbols were seen by the nation as a whole, as symbols of secession and slavery and racism, the viewing audience would never have accepted them as the clean, wholesome characters they were presented as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"IF, as  you claim, those symbols were seen by the nation as a whole, as symbols of secession and slavery and racism..."*_
> 
> In reality, from which you are clearly divorced, I never claimed any such thing. I stated those were props developed by the show to demonstrate location. I never said they were received as symbols of slavery by the viewing audience.  You made that up because fighting strawmen is the only way you feel you can win an argument. And for the record, I also never said they were seen as symbols of regional pride.
Click to expand...




Fair enough (that you did not claim it).


My point stands though. Katstevie is claiming that they are symbols of Evul, and other libs certianly have made that claim in the past.


If they were viewed that way, the show would never had used those symbols as "location demonstrators" and if the show did, the nation wide viewing audience would never have accepted The Duke Boys, as the Heroes of the Show.


PERHAPS, Boss Hogg, and the Sheriff would have been shown with the flag or a car named "The General Lee".


But the easy acceptance of the heroes of the show, painting the flag on the top of their car and naming the car THe General Lee, shows that such symbols were, at that time, accepted by the nation as a whole as completely harmless symbols of regional pride.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't watch it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you did not. This is a ludicrous argument.
Click to expand...


No doubt. These racists are in here trying to make slavery sound like paid employment with full benefits and a pension.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't watch it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sure that you did not. This is a ludicrous argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No doubt. These racists are in here trying to make slavery sound like paid employment with full benefits and a pension.
Click to expand...




Pointing out that the symbols of the "Confederate Flag" and the "General Lee", had been "rebranded" to NOT represent the actual historical Confederacy, 


is not a defense of slavery. 



D'uh.



Any white lib, that ever heard you say something like that, and pretended it was not retarded, was treating you like blacks can't be smart, because of race. FYI.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By nationwide viewing audience I am not talking about actual fans of the show, but all the people who were aware of the shows existence enough to know about the General Lee and the Good Ole Boys, Bo and Luke.
> 
> 
> You and your peers might not have liked the show, nor wanted to hang around the South, but you raised no fuss about the use of supposedly Evul symbols, representing slavery and treason and racism,
> 
> 
> because you knew that that was not the intent of the show producers, nor the characters in the story.
> 
> 
> 
> If you had made a fuss, you would have been laughed at.
> 
> 
> 
> Because those symbols had been "rebranded" generations before you were born, and accepted as harmless symbols of regional pride, by the very veterans that fought to defeat the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the show's fan base was NOT limited to the South, or to any "certain demographic". It was a huge nation wide hit.
Click to expand...


None of your use of a  cast of hillbilly clowns redefines nor revises the historical significance of the confederate flag.

You can spin it anyway you wish, but it does not erase it's TRUE  legacy.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By nationwide viewing audience I am not talking about actual fans of the show, but all the people who were aware of the shows existence enough to know about the General Lee and the Good Ole Boys, Bo and Luke.
> 
> 
> You and your peers might not have liked the show, nor wanted to hang around the South, but you raised no fuss about the use of supposedly Evul symbols, representing slavery and treason and racism,
> 
> 
> because you knew that that was not the intent of the show producers, nor the characters in the story.
> 
> 
> 
> If you had made a fuss, you would have been laughed at.
> 
> 
> 
> Because those symbols had been "rebranded" generations before you were born, and accepted as harmless symbols of regional pride, by the very veterans that fought to defeat the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the show's fan base was NOT limited to the South, or to any "certain demographic". It was a huge nation wide hit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your use of a  cast of hillbilly clowns redefines nor revises the historical significance of the confederate flag.
> 
> You can spin it anyway you wish, but it does not erase it's TRUE  legacy.
Click to expand...



I get that you disagree with the "rebranding" that took place.


But my point is not that the show "rebranded" the symbols.


But that the easy acceptance of the treatment of those symbols, as symbols of harmless regional pride,


proves my point that that "rebranding", had taken place long ago.



You can disagree with the choices that were historically made. 


But the "rebranding" of them as harmless symbols of regional pride, is historical fact, as I have demonstrated with my examples.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course. To keep with his words from years earlier... he was fighting the Civil War to keep the nation whole. Emancipation was a tool to give him an edge to attain that goal.
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_
> 
> The states' right to keep slavery legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn’t about slavery again View attachment 313395
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been shown repeatedly,  but are too stupid to absorb, the south fought for independence so they could keep their slaves....
> 
> _"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Among other issues, you mean, right?
> 
> 
> And it is funny the way you can't address his quotes from LIncoln and the Confederate President.
Click to expand...

Stop lying, I addressed them. I said I never claimed Lincoln's part of the war was over slavery and I'm showing how Davis' one quote is undermined by dozens of quotes from the states as given in their own statements for secession.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
> 
> 
> 
> _*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_
> 
> The states' right to keep slavery legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn’t about slavery again View attachment 313395
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been shown repeatedly,  but are too stupid to absorb, the south fought for independence so they could keep their slaves....
> 
> _"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Among other issues, you mean, right?
> 
> 
> And it is funny the way you can't address his quotes from LIncoln and the Confederate President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop lying, I addressed them. I said I never claimed Lincoln's part of the war was over slavery and I'm showing how Davis' one quote is undermined by dozens of quotes from the states as given in their own statements for secession.
Click to expand...



Oh, sorry, guess I missed those replies. 

ANyway, funny that you could not just say that they were both lying.


----------



## IM2

Correll,

The confederate flag that was used in that show was not even the original confederate flag. On top of that, the flag you bow to was created during the civil rights movement as a show of opposition to civil rights. your stories and claims have no merit based upon these facts. Unfortunately, you have the right in America to lie to yourself, but we have the right to tell you to shut the fuck up with that lie.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a dictionary to you? You don't adhere to the full definition anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean treat all the meanings listed as one and the same?
Click to expand...


You're kidding, right? You do understand that when there is more than one definition of a word in the dictionary that there is more than one definition of the word, yes? Ergo, there is more to the word "racism" than just _"...a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural..." _ It also entails hatred or intolerance of another race or racial prejudice or discrimination, as further defined by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's.

Now, when you say_ "To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman.", _this is true. But it's not the only definition of the word. It is also defined as racial prejudice, among other things. Which means, when a black guy spits on me because I'm white, he was being racist. Black racism, not to put too fine a point on it. 
It also means that when IM2 assumed I concocted my story of black racism, that falls under the "prejudice" definition of the word racism. He prejudged me a liar because I'm white and dared to claim that black racism exists. There was no other reason for him to make that assumption as he had no evidence.



> Yeah, you really arrived late to the brain line.



I don't know, given that you seem to think that one dictionary definition cancels out the other definitions, I'm thinking maybe I got there ahead of you.


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Neither the North or the South initially wanted to abolish slavery. The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights. The north did not desire to free enslaved people until it was clear Lincoln would need more men to end the war and bring the southern states back into the fold.
> 
> For reference, the American Civil war started in 1861.
> 
> Lincoln did not sign and put into effect the Emancipation Proclamation until 1863.
> 
> To deify Lincoln as a pure and upstanding person is kind of misguided. He was actually pretty racist.
> 
> “During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: “I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races … I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.””
> 
> -FACT CHECK: Did Abraham Lincoln Express Opposition to Racial Equality?
> 
> Lincoln was the foundation for the spectate but equal mindset. He wanted to segregate the entirety of the “black race” to keep them away from the “white race”.
> 
> Most economic historians agree that slavery would have ended by itself eventually. It is not economically sustainable to pay for room, board, clothes, and medical care to a individual when you could just pay him a terrible wage and be done with it.
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> FACTS! THAT IS THE ACTUAL NARRATIVE STOP LISTING TO DEMOCRATS!
> 
> 
> 
> _*"The south seceding to form the confederacy was done over an issue of states rights."*_
> 
> The states' right to keep slavery legal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn’t about slavery again View attachment 313395
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As you've been shown repeatedly,  but are too stupid to absorb, the south fought for independence so they could keep their slaves....
> 
> _"The hostility to this institution commenced before the adoption of the Constitution, and was manifested in the well-known Ordinance of 1787, in regard to the Northwestern Territory.
> 
> The feeling increased, until, in 1819-20, it deprived the South of more than half the vast territory acquired from France.
> 
> The same hostility dismembered Texas and seized upon all the territory acquired from Mexico.
> 
> It has grown until it denies the right of property in slaves, and refuses protection to that right on the high seas, in the Territories, and wherever the government of the United States had jurisdiction.
> 
> It refuses the admission of new slave States into the Union, and seeks to extinguish it by confining it within its present limits, denying the power of expansion.
> 
> It tramples the original equality of the South under foot.
> 
> It has nullified the Fugitive Slave Law in almost every free State in the Union, and has utterly broken the compact which our fathers pledged their faith to maintain.
> 
> It advocates negro equality, socially and politically, and promotes insurrection and incendiarism in our midst."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Among other issues, you mean, right?
> 
> 
> And it is funny the way you can't address his quotes from LIncoln and the Confederate President.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop lying, I addressed them. I said I never claimed Lincoln's part of the war was over slavery and I'm showing how Davis' one quote is undermined by dozens of quotes from the states as given in their own statements for secession.
Click to expand...

I’m
Sure democrats paid him to say a lot of things just like they paid Obama.. nice book deal huh? Do you think he would’ve got that if he was honest you think he would’ve got that if he  saved  black lives in Chicago?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need to "pretend" about ANYTHING.  A TV show depicting some backwards, backwoods hillbillies as proof of the Confederate flag being a "regional symbol of pride" is the most humorous joke that I've heard in a long time.
> 
> Lastly.....fly it proudly, in an attempt to put lipstick on a PIG.
> 
> I saw plenty of confederate flags in the 60's.
> 
> I know what it stood for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By nationwide viewing audience I am not talking about actual fans of the show, but all the people who were aware of the shows existence enough to know about the General Lee and the Good Ole Boys, Bo and Luke.
> 
> 
> You and your peers might not have liked the show, nor wanted to hang around the South, but you raised no fuss about the use of supposedly Evul symbols, representing slavery and treason and racism,
> 
> 
> because you knew that that was not the intent of the show producers, nor the characters in the story.
> 
> 
> 
> If you had made a fuss, you would have been laughed at.
> 
> 
> 
> Because those symbols had been "rebranded" generations before you were born, and accepted as harmless symbols of regional pride, by the very veterans that fought to defeat the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the show's fan base was NOT limited to the South, or to any "certain demographic". It was a huge nation wide hit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your use of a  cast of hillbilly clowns redefines nor revises the historical significance of the confederate flag.
> 
> You can spin it anyway you wish, but it does not erase it's TRUE  legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you disagree with the "rebranding" that took place.
> 
> 
> But my point is not that the show "rebranded" the symbols.
> 
> 
> But that the easy acceptance of the treatment of those symbols, as symbols of harmless regional pride,
> 
> 
> proves my point that that "rebranding", had taken place long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You can disagree with the choices that were historically made.
> 
> 
> But the "rebranding" of them as harmless symbols of regional pride, is historical fact, as I have demonstrated with my examples.
Click to expand...


Not "historical fact". More like historical "escapism", and abdication from human decency.

The show allowed a once a week escape route from a legacy that will live in history forever.

And served as a means to help those that were old enough to recall the real history, to label it as a now "harmless symbol"

As in, "All that we ever wanted, was the right to treat anyone however we pleased, because it was our right to do so, as an independent state".

I saw enough genuine "racecards" back in the 60's to know bullshit when I read it.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll,
> 
> The confederate flag that was used in that show was not even the original confederate flag. On top of that, the flag you bow to was created during the civil rights movement as a show of opposition to civil rights. your stories and claims have no merit based upon these facts. Unfortunately, you have the right in America to lie to yourself, but we have the right to tell you to shut the fuck up with that lie.




Well, yes and no. 


The flag used in the show, was not the original confederate flag. It was NOT as you claimed, created during the civil rights movement as a show of opposition to civil rights. It was based on the Battle Flag of the Army of Northern Virginia.

Hell, here you see at the joint Union/Confederate Army Reunion.









I'd love to hear your explanation for a flag that you claim was created in the 1960s, being flown in 1938.



That post civil war southerns embraced NOT the actual national flag of the Confederacy, but instead a Battle Field Flag of General Lee's army, was, imo, obviously part of the rebranding process, moving the focus from the political and economic policies of the Confederacy and to the much more morally  palatable military aspect of the War.



My point that the use of these symbols of regional pride, by the heroes of the story, being accepted by the nation as a whole, that that demonstrates that that "rebranding" took place and was accepted by the nation as a whole, 


is completely valid and reasonable, and nothing you have said, really challenges that.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the point is not the show, but the acceptance of it by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> It proves that the symbol has long been accepted by the nation as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Nationwide viewing audience"?
> 
> We didn't watch that show in my household, nor did many that I knew during its run.
> 
> Most people that I knew at the time, viewed that show as a being an example of somewhere that they wouldn't want to be after dark.
> 
> If the "viewing audience" primarily  consisted of Confederate flag waving individuals, it only proves that it appealed to a certain demographic.
> 
> Certainly not a nationwide audience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By nationwide viewing audience I am not talking about actual fans of the show, but all the people who were aware of the shows existence enough to know about the General Lee and the Good Ole Boys, Bo and Luke.
> 
> 
> You and your peers might not have liked the show, nor wanted to hang around the South, but you raised no fuss about the use of supposedly Evul symbols, representing slavery and treason and racism,
> 
> 
> because you knew that that was not the intent of the show producers, nor the characters in the story.
> 
> 
> 
> If you had made a fuss, you would have been laughed at.
> 
> 
> 
> Because those symbols had been "rebranded" generations before you were born, and accepted as harmless symbols of regional pride, by the very veterans that fought to defeat the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And the show's fan base was NOT limited to the South, or to any "certain demographic". It was a huge nation wide hit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None of your use of a  cast of hillbilly clowns redefines nor revises the historical significance of the confederate flag.
> 
> You can spin it anyway you wish, but it does not erase it's TRUE  legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I get that you disagree with the "rebranding" that took place.
> 
> 
> But my point is not that the show "rebranded" the symbols.
> 
> 
> But that the easy acceptance of the treatment of those symbols, as symbols of harmless regional pride,
> 
> 
> proves my point that that "rebranding", had taken place long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You can disagree with the choices that were historically made.
> 
> 
> But the "rebranding" of them as harmless symbols of regional pride, is historical fact, as I have demonstrated with my examples.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not "historical fact". More like historical "escapism", and abdication from human decency.
> 
> The show allowed a once a week escape route from a legacy that will live in history forever.
> 
> And served as a means to help those that were old enough to recall the real history, to label it as a now "harmless symbol"
> 
> As in, "All that we ever wanted, was the right to treat anyone however we pleased, because it was our right to do so, as an independent state".
> 
> I saw enough genuine "racecards" back in the 60's to know bullshit when I read it.
Click to expand...



The "rebranding" happened. The acceptance of the show by the nation as as whole, demonstrates that.


I understand that you think that allowing the "rebranding" of those symbols was wrong. 


But that does not change the fact that, post Civil War, the nation of that time period, including the veterans that fought and defeated the South, implemented a policy of reconciliation with the South and part of that was accepting that the South was not going to be wallowing in guilt for the rest of history. 









To generations of Americans, the Confederate Flag is part of American history, and long ago accepted as a part of ongoing American heritage, specifically as a symbol of southern regional pride, long ago stripped of any identification as secession or slavery or treason, or even racism.


AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE TV SHOW, THE DUKES OF HAZZARD.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Acceptance is not approval. Cut the crap.

Most have been forced to "accept" the "choice"  between two mediocre to crappy political presidential candidates and cable TV providers for decades. Doesn't translate to "rebranding" or "approval." You just make shit up, repeat it ad nauseum, and call it "proof." Fuck you and your vacuous logic.


----------



## rightwinger

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
Click to expand...


It is all part of the Lost Cause propaganda. 
Slavery was not so bad, they were better off than in Africa.......oh, did you know blacks owned slaves too?


----------



## Jitss617

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is all part of the Lost Cause propaganda.
> Slavery was not so bad, they were better off than in Africa.......oh, did you know blacks owned slaves too?
Click to expand...

Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.

The civil war was about keeping the Union together.


----------



## Faun

Jitss617 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is all part of the Lost Cause propaganda.
> Slavery was not so bad, they were better off than in Africa.......oh, did you know blacks owned slaves too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
Click to expand...

LOL 

Oh? The south fought to keep the union together?


----------



## Jitss617

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is all part of the Lost Cause propaganda.
> Slavery was not so bad, they were better off than in Africa.......oh, did you know blacks owned slaves too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Oh? The south fought to keep the union together?
Click to expand...

Who said that?


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 1860 census shows that in the states that sought to secede from the Union, an average of more than 32 percent of white families owned slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
Click to expand...


Of course you did.

AFTER you made the inaccurate statement that 90% DID NOT.


----------



## Marion Morrison

I was liking Herman Cain, but he got kneecapped early on. Damn sure would vote for him over McCain or Romney.

He's too old now, though. Plus Trump is president and has been doing OK in my book.


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean an education like yours which produces a sentence with 7 words and one expression where you make 7 grammatical/spelling mistakes.
> 
> Who wants to be a dumbass con like you?
> 
> But g'head, tell the forum again how slavery wasn't the primary issue for the Civil War...
> 
> _"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery."_​
> 
> 
> 
> Yes that’s elite democrats who were down south at the time,, it didn’t represent the people of the south.. just like now Democrats are in the north all Kreiser racial oppression all urban sleep plantations are run by democrats I am not with Democrats, They don’t represent me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The people didn't elect representatives to represent them?
> 
> You're actually getting dumber.
> 
> _"The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows: "No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
> 
> This stipulation was so material to the compact, that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater number of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had previously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which now composes the States north of the Ohio River."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we have urban slave plantation’s today with Democrats have enforced new Jim Crowe laws that affect the education system that affect jobs that affect economic mobility.. let’s end it today.. are you with me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a proven racist. Meaning anything you claim or propose is rooted in racism. And you've been caught lying repeatedly to further your racist agenda. Meaning whatever you suggest has an underlying purpose to perpetuate racism. So no, I neither accept your false premises nor agree with your proposals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a fact I see it every day the common black in Boston can’t talk properly! I can can barely talk properly because I went to black schools Democrats did nothing and continue to do nothing! They Are leading them back into slavery they’re building dozens of new government controlled housing projects to move these people in that is control
Click to expand...


Didn't your keepers take responsibility for teaching you anything, or did they just leave you on the steps in front of the schools that you attended?


----------



## IM2

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> 
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is all part of the Lost Cause propaganda.
> Slavery was not so bad, they were better off than in Africa.......oh, did you know blacks owned slaves too?
Click to expand...


Don't forget that a black man was the first slaveowner in America.


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you did.
> 
> AFTER you made the inaccurate statement that 90% DID NOT.
Click to expand...

Do you have a point to make?


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is all part of the Lost Cause propaganda.
> Slavery was not so bad, they were better off than in Africa.......oh, did you know blacks owned slaves too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Oh? The south fought to keep the union together?
Click to expand...


LOL!


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Swastikas were brandished as a prop to show they were nazis. Likewise, the confederate references on Dukes of Hazard were brandished as a prop to show the were southerners.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 blacks originally enslaved black people and sold them
> 2. Free blacks owned  slaves in America
> 3. Many blacks returned home to their masters after the war
> 4. Many blacks and people of color fought for the Confederacy because they all knew the south was not racist lol YOU MORONS. STOP LYING
Click to expand...


There is no validated number of slaves that elected to remain property of slave owners after the war ended. 

What source did you acquire this ridiculous assertion from?


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.history.com/news/5-myths-about-slavery
> 
> Get AN education. Remedial lessons on how to look up facts on the internet, are free. SMGDH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course you did.
> 
> AFTER you made the inaccurate statement that 90% DID NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a point to make?
Click to expand...


Yes. The "point" is that you are making up bullshit.


----------



## Jitss617

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Correct.
> 
> And the Nazis were know by being nazis to be the bad guys, and the audience had not problem accepting this and enjoying the show.
> 
> 
> 
> The Southerns, were known to be southerns, by their use of southern symbols, and they were, not KNOWN to be good guys just on that basis, after all Boss Hogg was a southern and he was the bad guy,
> 
> 
> but, the Duke Boys were known to be southerns, thanks in part to their use of southern or confederate symbols, and they were presented as THE HEROES of the show, and the viewing audience, the NATION WIDE viewing audience, had no problem with this, it was never commented on, that I ever heard of, at the time, then or since, till very recently.
> 
> 
> 
> That is MY point, that the symbol was "rebranded" LONG ago, from a symbol of secession and slavery to one of harmless regional pride.
> 
> 
> You, being a modern liberal, might disagree with that rebranding, but it is an historical fact.
> 
> 
> Ignoring it, and pretending that the people that use it today, are using it in a fashion they are NOT using it,
> 
> 
> is just you ginning up a thin excuse to be very rude to people and to marginalize them.
> 
> 
> 
> ON false grounds.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1 blacks originally enslaved black people and sold them
> 2. Free blacks owned  slaves in America
> 3. Many blacks returned home to their masters after the war
> 4. Many blacks and people of color fought for the Confederacy because they all knew the south was not racist lol YOU MORONS. STOP LYING
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no validated number of slaves that elected to remain property of slave owners after the war ended.
> 
> What source did you acquire this ridiculous assertion from?
Click to expand...

According to historian of the South, Eugene Genovese, about fifteen percent of slaves stayed with their masters. 

I know it’s frustrating to understand the Democrats have lied to you about the narrative of slavery


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a very popular American show not just southern everybody in America love that show
Click to expand...


I lived in America for the entire time the show ran and didn't know anyone who even watched it, let alone "loved it".


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Like with Hogan's Heroes, that didn't change the meaning of the flag or redeem General Lee, who led a revolt to protect slavery. They were props in TV shows to reflect their location.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My point was not that the show did anything to the symbol, but that the easy acceptance of it's portrayal of the symbol as a harmless symbol of regional pride, proves that the "rebranding" did occur, and was widely accepted by the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> 
> Would you like to address it now, or would you like to pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The flag and the name didn't portay regional pride on the show anymore than it portrayed lawlessness as part of the south, which were the main characters of the show. The show was about some southerners and the flag and name were props to describe the location.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so.
> 
> 
> AND, this behavior, done by the heroes of the show, was accepted as normal behavior, by the nation wide viewing audience.
> 
> 
> THus, demonstrating my point, that the symbol has for over 5 generations been accepted by America as a whole, as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> Your denial of the fact that the characters were showing regional pride with those actions and symbols, is not credible. You are being very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"The main characters, who painted the flag on the roof of their car, and named their car, The General Lee, were clearly and obviously showing regional pride in doing so."*_
> 
> Holyfuckingshit
> 
> The "main characters" did no such thing, ys dumbshit. It was a TV show. The makers of the show put those on the car. And they did so to reflect the location was in the south. It had nothing to do with slavery or regional pride. It was just a prop on a TV show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know why Abraham Lincoln signed the emancipation in 1863 after the war was already started in 1861? Lol hehehe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you know, or are you asking to be told?
Click to expand...


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
> If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?
> 
> why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?
> 
> why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?
> 
> why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?
> 
> your narrative makes no sense backed by facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the same reason some Jews worked on the side of the nazis -- self preservation.
Click to expand...


And just like them, many slaves who appeared to side with the south, acted on behalf of the north secretly.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a dictionary to you? You don't adhere to the full definition anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean treat all the meanings listed as one and the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? You do understand that when there is more than one definition of a word in the dictionary that there is more than one definition of the word, yes? Ergo, there is more to the word "racism" than just _"...a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural..." _ It also entails hatred or intolerance of another race or racial prejudice or discrimination, as further defined by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's.
> 
> Now, when you say_ "To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman.", _this is true. But it's not the only definition of the word. It is also defined as racial prejudice, among other things. Which means, when a black guy spits on me because I'm white, he was being racist. Black racism, not to put too fine a point on it.
> It also means that when IM2 assumed I concocted my story of black racism, that falls under the "prejudice" definition of the word racism. He prejudged me a liar because I'm white and dared to claim that black racism exists. There was no other reason for him to make that assumption as he had no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you really arrived late to the brain line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, given that you seem to think that one dictionary definition cancels out the other definitions, I'm thinking maybe I got there ahead of you.
Click to expand...

Ahh, it's the old "you seem to think" strawman erection..
Yep, racism is whatever you want it to be. Your privilege at work. Enjoy.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Acceptance is not approval. Cut the crap.
> 
> Most have been forced to "accept" the "choice"  between two mediocre to crappy political presidential candidates and cable TV providers for decades. Doesn't translate to "rebranding" or "approval." You just make shit up, repeat it ad nauseum, and call it "proof." Fuck you and your vacuous logic.





If the confederate flag was considered in the 80s, even just by liberals, the way you libs pretend to consider it now, the presentation of Bo and Luke Duke in a sympathetic light, while tooling around in the General Lee with a big ole Confederate Flag painted on the roof, 


would never had been done, and if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.



The easy acceptance of the show, and the way they presented those symbols as utterly harmless, proves my point, that they have long ago been "rebranded" as harmless symbols of regional pride.


My logic is bulletproof, which is why the other posters have spent most of their time and energy pretending to not understand it, and attacking strawmen.



What is upsetting you, is your brain feeling the pain of learning. 


YOu lib asshole.


----------



## IM2

_1 blacks originally enslaved black people and sold them
2. Free blacks owned  slaves in America
3. Many blacks returned home to their masters after the war
4. Many blacks and people of color fought for the Confederacy because they all knew the south was not racist lol YOU MORONS. STOP LYING_

1. Whites enslaved whites in Europe. Blacks enslaved prisoners of war, debtors, and criminals. Whites invaded Africa, chose tribes to arm, gave or sold them guns in return for the capture of other blacks.

2. Free blacks purchased family members or friends.

3. No blacks returned to their masters until Johnson eliminated  Special Field Order 15 and Circular 13 talking away 400,000 acres of land from newly freed blacks. Vagrancy laws and black codes allowed whites to jail blacks then whites would pay the fines and in return for payment the blacks were forced to return to the plantations in order to pay off  the debt.

4. Many blacks did not fight for the confederacy, most who did were acting as union spies.

*Now shut your lying racist white ass up.*


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
Click to expand...


I find it  amusing that in an age of abundant information being accessible, that such ignorance is possible.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a very popular American show not just southern everybody in America love that show
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived in America for the entire time the show ran and didn't know anyone who even watched it, let alone "loved it".
Click to expand...




You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.


----------



## Faun

katsteve2012 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
> If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?
> 
> why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?
> 
> why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?
> 
> why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?
> 
> your narrative makes no sense backed by facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the same reason some Jews worked on the side of the nazis -- self preservation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just like them, many slaves who appeared to side with the south, acted on behalf of the north secretly.
Click to expand...

Jizz has no clue what he's talking about.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a dictionary to you? You don't adhere to the full definition anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean treat all the meanings listed as one and the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? You do understand that when there is more than one definition of a word in the dictionary that there is more than one definition of the word, yes? Ergo, there is more to the word "racism" than just _"...a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural..." _ It also entails hatred or intolerance of another race or racial prejudice or discrimination, as further defined by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's.
> 
> Now, when you say_ "To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman.", _this is true. But it's not the only definition of the word. It is also defined as racial prejudice, among other things. Which means, when a black guy spits on me because I'm white, he was being racist. Black racism, not to put too fine a point on it.
> It also means that when IM2 assumed I concocted my story of black racism, that falls under the "prejudice" definition of the word racism. He prejudged me a liar because I'm white and dared to claim that black racism exists. There was no other reason for him to make that assumption as he had no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you really arrived late to the brain line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, given that you seem to think that one dictionary definition cancels out the other definitions, I'm thinking maybe I got there ahead of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, it's the old "you seem to think" strawman erection..
> Yep, racism is whatever you want it to be. Your privilege at work. Enjoy.
Click to expand...


Poor ghost, so butthurt because I refuse to say he was a victim of racism. Yet he denies blacks have been victims of racism by whites for 243 years. The guy spit on you because you ran and told the boss on him. Now you can try equating that to 243 years of whites enforcing their racism on us by laws and policies if you want to, but it's a false equivalence with no merit. You're whining about an event that had no adverse impact upon you. The black guy lost his job. But blacks get spit on by whites and then get fired because they complain about getting spit on. So fuck ghost rider up his ass with no Vaseline, whining bitch.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptance is not approval. Cut the crap.
> 
> Most have been forced to "accept" the "choice"  between two mediocre to crappy political presidential candidates and cable TV providers for decades. Doesn't translate to "rebranding" or "approval." You just make shit up, repeat it ad nauseum, and call it "proof." Fuck you and your vacuous logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the confederate flag was considered in the 80s, even just by liberals, the way you libs pretend to consider it now, the presentation of Bo and Luke Duke in a sympathetic light, while tooling around in the General Lee with a big ole Confederate Flag painted on the roof,
> 
> 
> would never had been done, and if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the show, and the way they presented those symbols as utterly harmless, proves my point, that they have long ago been "rebranded" as harmless symbols of regional pride.
> 
> 
> My logic is bulletproof, which is why the other posters have spent most of their time and energy pretending to not understand it, and attacking strawmen.
> 
> 
> 
> What is upsetting you, is your brain feeling the pain of learning.
> 
> 
> YOu lib asshole.
Click to expand...

Other shows, like All in the Family, proved you're a buffoon.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a very popular American show not just southern everybody in America love that show
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived in America for the entire time the show ran and didn't know anyone who even watched it, let alone "loved it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.
Click to expand...



My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a dictionary to you? You don't adhere to the full definition anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean treat all the meanings listed as one and the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? You do understand that when there is more than one definition of a word in the dictionary that there is more than one definition of the word, yes? Ergo, there is more to the word "racism" than just _"...a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural..." _ It also entails hatred or intolerance of another race or racial prejudice or discrimination, as further defined by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's.
> 
> Now, when you say_ "To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman.", _this is true. But it's not the only definition of the word. It is also defined as racial prejudice, among other things. Which means, when a black guy spits on me because I'm white, he was being racist. Black racism, not to put too fine a point on it.
> It also means that when IM2 assumed I concocted my story of black racism, that falls under the "prejudice" definition of the word racism. He prejudged me a liar because I'm white and dared to claim that black racism exists. There was no other reason for him to make that assumption as he had no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you really arrived late to the brain line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, given that you seem to think that one dictionary definition cancels out the other definitions, I'm thinking maybe I got there ahead of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, it's the old "you seem to think" strawman erection..
> Yep, racism is whatever you want it to be. Your privilege at work. Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor ghost, so butthurt because I refuse to say he was a victim of racism. Yet he denies blacks have been victims of racism by whites for 243 years. The guy spit on you because you ran and told the boss on him. Now you can try equating that to 243 years of whites enforcing their racism on us by laws and policies if you want to, but it's a false equivalence with no merit. You're whining abut an event that had no adverse impact upon you. The black guy lost his job. But blacks get spit on by whites and then get fired because they complain about getting spit on. So fuck ghost rider up his ass with no Vaseline, whining bitch.
Click to expand...



Saying that two events are in the same category is not saying they are equal. 


When your white lib friends, pretend that the stupid shit you say, is not stupid, they are disrespecting you.


I'm showing you the respect of NOT, giving you a pass, based on you being black. I'm calling out the stupid shit you say.


In your heart, what is more important to you? Respect, or the pat on your head?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptance is not approval. Cut the crap.
> 
> Most have been forced to "accept" the "choice"  between two mediocre to crappy political presidential candidates and cable TV providers for decades. Doesn't translate to "rebranding" or "approval." You just make shit up, repeat it ad nauseum, and call it "proof." Fuck you and your vacuous logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the confederate flag was considered in the 80s, even just by liberals, the way you libs pretend to consider it now, the presentation of Bo and Luke Duke in a sympathetic light, while tooling around in the General Lee with a big ole Confederate Flag painted on the roof,
> 
> 
> would never had been done, and if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the show, and the way they presented those symbols as utterly harmless, proves my point, that they have long ago been "rebranded" as harmless symbols of regional pride.
> 
> 
> My logic is bulletproof, which is why the other posters have spent most of their time and energy pretending to not understand it, and attacking strawmen.
> 
> 
> 
> What is upsetting you, is your brain feeling the pain of learning.
> 
> 
> YOu lib asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other shows, like All in the Family, proved you're a buffoon.
Click to expand...




Yet, you don't explain how or why....


Loser.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.


TV Land Yanks ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ Amid Confederate Flag Backlash

Better late than never. Plenty objected loudly at the time. They were just ignored back then.


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> 
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
> If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?
> 
> why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?
> 
> why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?
> 
> why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?
> 
> your narrative makes no sense backed by facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For the same reason some Jews worked on the side of the nazis -- self preservation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And just like them, many slaves who appeared to side with the south, acted on behalf of the north secretly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jizz has no clue what he's talking about.
Click to expand...


No doubt about it.


----------



## Marion Morrison

The First Black Republican Nominee will be...



















Not in 2020.
I tell you this though, I bet the 1st non-white Republican nominee will be black.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> TV Land Yanks ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ Amid Confederate Flag Backlash
> 
> Better late than never. Plenty objected loudly at the time. They were just ignored back then.
Click to expand...


Translation: "They weren't pussies back then."

What does it say on that flag in my signature?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a very popular American show not just southern everybody in America love that show
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived in America for the entire time the show ran and didn't know anyone who even watched it, let alone "loved it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.
Click to expand...



My circle of friends and family included some people that liked the Dukes of Hazzard and some that did not.


Educated? Quite possibly. Lot of blue collar in my past and present. 


Oh, was that supposed to make me feel bad or intimidate me?


Dude. I'm PROUD of it.


----------



## katsteve2012

Jitss617 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> 
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meme is a strawman as I never claimed the north fought to end slavery. They fought to preserve the nation. A war they had to fight because the south attempted to secede.  And Davis' remarks, despite his denial about slavery, echoed the south's stated reason for secession. Independence from the Constitutional federal government they felt was betrayed by trying to eradicate slavery...
> 
> _"On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.
> 
> The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy."_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s not a meme it’s quotes for the reason of the war.. i’m pretty sure we know the reason for the war as stated by factual evidence.
> If the south was actually fighting to keep black people as slaves why did free black men join the confederate army why did Latinos why did Indians why did Asians?
> 
> why were blacks staying on the plantation if they were treated so bad?
> 
> why did 25% of the slaves die After being removed by the Yankees?
> 
> why do we have quotes from slaves saying they preferred to stay with their masters because they were family and they were treated better?
> 
> your narrative makes no sense backed by facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im
> 
> You're a prolific IDIOT of the highest order. Runaway slaves were routinely whipped or killed, for even  attempting to escape.
> 
> There were bounties on slaves who escaped to freedom . They ran a risk of being returned to captivity. If a slave had two options, one to escape or one to remain, many elected to survive.
> 
> You are the dumbest stone to ever post in a public forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they’re still Whipped  and, beat up in the streets if they leave the Democratic Party what is your fucking point
Click to expand...


My point is clear. Can you not read? Would one syllable words on flashcards be helpful to you?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> TV Land Yanks ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ Amid Confederate Flag Backlash
> 
> Better late than never. Plenty objected loudly at the time. They were just ignored back then.
Click to expand...



Posting something that happened in 2015, does not refute my point about what happened after the Civil War, and up to and including the 1980s.


Obviously. I  mean, really, really *obviously.* 


My point stands. 



If the confederate flag was considered in the 80s, even just by liberals, the way you libs pretend to consider it now, the presentation of Bo and Luke Duke in a sympathetic light, while tooling around in the General Lee with a big ole Confederate Flag painted on the roof,


would never had been done, and if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.



The easy acceptance of the show, and the way they presented those symbols as utterly harmless, proves my point, that they have long ago been "rebranded" as harmless symbols of regional pride.


My logic is bulletproof, which is why the other posters have spent most of their time and energy pretending to not understand it, and attacking strawmen.



What is upsetting you, is your brain feeling the pain of learning.


YOu lib asshole.


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> TV Land Yanks ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ Amid Confederate Flag Backlash
> 
> Better late than never. Plenty objected loudly at the time. They were just ignored back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "They weren't pussies back then."
> 
> What does it say on that flag in my signature?
Click to expand...



I make a point about how the acceptance of a tv show in the 80s reflects on the say people were thinking in the 80s, and he posts something about something that happens in 2015.



He is being pathetic.


ANd yes, libs are more of pussies now, than they have ever been.


----------



## Marion Morrison

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a very popular American show not just southern everybody in America love that show
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived in America for the entire time the show ran and didn't know anyone who even watched it, let alone "loved it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.
Click to expand...


I'll give you the "more diverse" probably (Even though I have mixed friends you've probably never even dreamed up what they are), 50% or more of my friends are white and 98% of my family is.). As far as educated: No Way.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a very popular American show not just southern everybody in America love that show
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I lived in America for the entire time the show ran and didn't know anyone who even watched it, let alone "loved it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family included some people that liked the Dukes of Hazzard and some that did not.
> 
> 
> Educated? Quite possibly. Lot of blue collar in my past and present.
> 
> 
> Oh, was that supposed to make me feel bad or intimidate me?
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm PROUD of it.
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO. I would not stoop to the juvenile  level of attempting to intimidate a complete stranger on a dumbass message board. So be as proud as you want to, it's your right.

You implied that my circle of friends are not diverse, and I responded and corrected you.

No more, no less.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptance is not approval. Cut the crap.
> 
> Most have been forced to "accept" the "choice"  between two mediocre to crappy political presidential candidates and cable TV providers for decades. Doesn't translate to "rebranding" or "approval." You just make shit up, repeat it ad nauseum, and call it "proof." Fuck you and your vacuous logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the confederate flag was considered in the 80s, even just by liberals, the way you libs pretend to consider it now, the presentation of Bo and Luke Duke in a sympathetic light, while tooling around in the General Lee with a big ole Confederate Flag painted on the roof,
> 
> 
> would never had been done, and if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the show, and the way they presented those symbols as utterly harmless, proves my point, that they have long ago been "rebranded" as harmless symbols of regional pride.
> 
> 
> My logic is bulletproof, which is why the other posters have spent most of their time and energy pretending to not understand it, and attacking strawmen.
> 
> 
> 
> What is upsetting you, is your brain feeling the pain of learning.
> 
> 
> YOu lib asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other shows, like All in the Family, proved you're a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you don't explain how or why....
> 
> 
> Loser.
Click to expand...

LOL 

Liar, I already explained how America turned in to watch racism and bigotry with All in the family, just as they turned in to watch Dukes of Hazzard. Americans no more accepted the Confederate flag and General Lee as they did racism and bigotry. 

You're literally relying on TV shows to invent a point about reality.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a very popular American show not just southern everybody in America love that show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in America for the entire time the show ran and didn't know anyone who even watched it, let alone "loved it".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family included some people that liked the Dukes of Hazzard and some that did not.
> 
> 
> Educated? Quite possibly. Lot of blue collar in my past and present.
> 
> 
> Oh, was that supposed to make me feel bad or intimidate me?
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm PROUD of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. I would not stoop to the juvenile  level of attempting to intimidate a complete stranger on a dumbass message board. So be as proud as you want to, it's your right.
> 
> You implied that my circle of friends are not diverse, and I responded and corrected you.
> 
> No more, no less.
Click to expand...




Just guessing at your vague intent with your off topic question. And you seem like the type.


My point stands. The Dukes of Hazzard was one of the highest rated shows of the time. If you managed to not have ANY fans in your circle of friends, that sounds like you are the one being really narrow minded.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acceptance is not approval. Cut the crap.
> 
> Most have been forced to "accept" the "choice"  between two mediocre to crappy political presidential candidates and cable TV providers for decades. Doesn't translate to "rebranding" or "approval." You just make shit up, repeat it ad nauseum, and call it "proof." Fuck you and your vacuous logic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the confederate flag was considered in the 80s, even just by liberals, the way you libs pretend to consider it now, the presentation of Bo and Luke Duke in a sympathetic light, while tooling around in the General Lee with a big ole Confederate Flag painted on the roof,
> 
> 
> would never had been done, and if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the show, and the way they presented those symbols as utterly harmless, proves my point, that they have long ago been "rebranded" as harmless symbols of regional pride.
> 
> 
> My logic is bulletproof, which is why the other posters have spent most of their time and energy pretending to not understand it, and attacking strawmen.
> 
> 
> 
> What is upsetting you, is your brain feeling the pain of learning.
> 
> 
> YOu lib asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Other shows, like All in the Family, proved you're a buffoon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you don't explain how or why....
> 
> 
> Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Liar, I already explained how America turned in to watch racism and bigotry with All in the family, just as they turned in to watch Dukes of Hazzard. Americans no more accepted the Confederate flag and General Lee as they did racism and bigotry.
> 
> You're literally relying on TV shows to invent a point about reality.
Click to expand...




And I pointed out that All in the Family was a far more serious and nuanced show. Archie Bunker, was presented not an idealized hero, but as a deeply flawed man. 


The DUkes of Hazzard was a much simpler show,and there was nothing on the nuance of All in the Family, especially in relation to their regional pride. or the General Lee and the Confederate Flag painted on it's top.


YOur denial of this obvious and glaring truth, is just you stone walling.



And there is nothing wrong with looking at a society's entertainment to learn about or make a point about a society, or what they believe or accept.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance by the nation wide viewing audience of the heroes' use of the symbols, proves that on the national stage, that the flag was accepted as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> That is the point. The reaction of the nation wide viewing audience. Which utterly refutes your claim.
> 
> 
> You keep pretending to not get that.
> 
> 
> That is the history of this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The nation also accepted the outright bigotry and racism of Archie Bunker in his role on a TV show. That doesn't mean bigotry or racism was, or is, tolerated by the folks who were entertained by it while watching All in the Family.
Click to expand...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> TV Land Yanks ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ Amid Confederate Flag Backlash
> 
> Better late than never. Plenty objected loudly at the time. They were just ignored back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "They weren't pussies back then."
> 
> What does it say on that flag in my signature?
Click to expand...

I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was "one of the 20th Century’s most deceitful & pitiful men. A supporter of McCarthy, war cheerleader & moralizer who casually impugned patriotism & called people perverts while draft-dodging & having serial drunken affairs.”?  That might be interesting.. "Wayne was anything but a real-life war hero." or "Wayne was no model of physical courage or moral rectitude."? Any of those would be refreshingly honest admissions,.. But do I care enough to even look? Nah.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Grumblenuts said:


> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..




Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, most didn't own slaves like I said,, and many slaves were with that family for a few generations, they were family, They were terrified of what the elite Democrats would’ve did in retaliation to free blacks which eventually came true Jim Crowe laws lynching etc... elite democrats still attack free blacks nothing has changed
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
Click to expand...

I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .

But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Leave it up to these racist ass dic suckers, Hogan's Heroes proves that the Nazis and the whole Holocaust thing wasn't that bad.  

These people are pathetic...


----------



## Marion Morrison

Biff_Poindexter said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
Click to expand...








Thus goes the SJW talking points.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> if done, would have generated tremendous backlash.
> 
> 
> 
> TV Land Yanks ‘Dukes of Hazzard’ Amid Confederate Flag Backlash
> 
> Better late than never. Plenty objected loudly at the time. They were just ignored back then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation: "They weren't pussies back then."
> 
> What does it say on that flag in my signature?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was "one of the 20th Century’s most deceitful & pitiful men. A supporter of McCarthy, war cheerleader & moralizer who casually impugned patriotism & called people perverts while draft-dodging & having serial drunken affairs.”?  That might be interesting.. "Wayne was anything but a real-life war hero." or "Wayne was no model of physical courage or moral rectitude."? Any of those would be refreshingly honest admissions,.. But do I care enough to even look? Nah.
Click to expand...



Your pretense of being too stupid to understand the difference between "signature" and "avatar" is not credible. 



He point was clear. He doesn't care about your snowflake feelings. That you were too cowardly to address that, ironically validates his position.  


Do you understand that?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
Click to expand...

Eew, seems I struck a noive..

At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you stated was that 90% of the south did not have slaves.
> 
> Must I continue to spoon feed you facts that you choose to ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said most
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
Click to expand...




1. I am not a racist. FUck you, you cowardly faggot.


2. Hollywood was less bad back then. Liberalism was less far gone. 

3. And regardless, the point is still valid. AMERICA as a whole accepted the presentation of the confederate flag and a the name Gen Lee, as harmless symbols of regional pride to be used by sympathetic characters.

4. The heyday of lynching was back in the 1800s, you fucking moron. THe 1980s? You couldn't match a single Chicago weekend death toll with the entire decade of "lynching".


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
Click to expand...




It is all they got. And they are fooling fewer and fewer people with it, all the time. But, it is still all they got.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Grumblenuts said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
Click to expand...


Oh! so he drums up some stolen-valor-type stuff!

Okay cupcake, what battles did you fight in? What years were you deployed and what did you do? What unit were you in?

You ever inject a village mullah with deadly poison in the middle of the night? Sup?

I know quite a bit about things like this. Okay, I can't post that one..

I'm more of a warrior than you, and I've never officially been to war.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
Click to expand...




Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.


Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.


All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.


So, libs wallow in it.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Marion Morrison said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I said most
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
Click to expand...

I only debate my equals, all others I teach...

And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no  "it's too early to have that talk" BS because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...

And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...

Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron


----------



## Marion Morrison

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only debate my equals, all others I teach...
> 
> And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no, it's too early to have that talk because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...
> 
> And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...
> 
> Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron
Click to expand...


As a prof of mine once said: "Those who can't do, teach!"

PS: You're not spinning hard enough, cupcake. You gotta spin harder than that to worm your way out of this.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh! so he drums up some stolen-valor-type stuff!
> 
> Okay cupcake, what battles did you fight in? What years were you deployed and what did you do? What unit were you in?
> 
> You ever inject a village mullah with deadly poison in the middle of the night? Sup?
> 
> I know quite a bit about things like this. Okay, I can't post that one..
> 
> I'm more of a warrior than you, and I've never officially been to war.
Click to expand...

Um, that was about "SJW" and John Wayne, slowpoke. Couldn't care less about you personally. Sorry, loser.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Marion Morrison said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only debate my equals, all others I teach...
> 
> And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no, it's too early to have that talk because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...
> 
> And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...
> 
> Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a prof of mine once said: "Those who can't do, teach!"
> 
> PS: You're not spinning hard enough, cupcake.
Click to expand...

Why cant you address the point of the post then??

If someone asked you what time it was -- would you go into a long diatribe about your opposition to interracial marriage instead??


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One buffoonish TV program does not negate what far many more viewed as a different type of "symbol".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The easy acceptance of the tv show, by the nation as a whole and the way it portrayed the symbol, shows that the vast majority of America, viewed it as a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> THat is my point. Would you like to address it now, or pretend to not understand it some more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only debate my equals, all others I teach...
> 
> And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no, it's too early to have that talk because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...
> 
> And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...
> 
> Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron
Click to expand...



I addressed the topic. Trump is president, we hope he gets re-elected in 2020, and Pence then gets elected for two terms.


It is unlikely that if that happened, that the country would really be up for electing his VP, I would hope so.


It is too early to speculate, for me, on what republicans might be ready for an presidential run, in 12 or 16 years.


White or black.


That the conversation has wandered, is not surprising. 


As for dic sucking, you are the only faggot here. I heard that you once choked on so many dicks for so long that you ended up with brain damage.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Grumblenuts said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh! so he drums up some stolen-valor-type stuff!
> 
> Okay cupcake, what battles did you fight in? What years were you deployed and what did you do? What unit were you in?
> 
> You ever inject a village mullah with deadly poison in the middle of the night? Sup?
> 
> I know quite a bit about things like this. Okay, I can't post that one..
> 
> I'm more of a warrior than you, and I've never officially been to war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, that was about "SJW" and John Wayne, slowpoke. Couldn't care less about you personally. Sorry, loser.
Click to expand...


Oh! So you're proud to be a "Social Justice Warrior", do I have that correct?


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> 
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only debate my equals, all others I teach...
> 
> And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no, it's too early to have that talk because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...
> 
> And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...
> 
> Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a prof of mine once said: "Those who can't do, teach!"
> 
> PS: You're not spinning hard enough, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why cant you address the point of the post then??
> 
> If someone asked you what time it was -- would you go into a long diatribe about your opposition to interracial marriage instead??
Click to expand...



Said the faggot that keeps bringing up dick sucking.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I addressed it already. Several times. "The Dukes of Hazzard" was nothing more than  a cartoonish, buffoonish television show that portrayed some backwoods hicks who couldn't get out of their own way, as being harmless.
> 
> On the  national and worldwide stage, that same flag represents much more than some innocuous  symbol of "regional pride".
> 
> As I said before, fly it proudly.
> 
> Its history needs to be common knowledge.....and to most it is.
> 
> 
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only debate my equals, all others I teach...
> 
> And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no, it's too early to have that talk because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...
> 
> And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...
> 
> Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a prof of mine once said: "Those who can't do, teach!"
> 
> PS: You're not spinning hard enough, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why cant you address the point of the post then??
> 
> If someone asked you what time it was -- would you go into a long diatribe about your opposition to interracial marriage instead??
Click to expand...




He was responding to your stupid post, bringing up your accusation of "racism". 


So, if he was off topic, it is because YOU went there.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
Click to expand...

So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??

I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common


----------



## Marion Morrison

IDK who didn't know it by the OP, but there are no good black candidates are on the horizon for Republicans this year.


Trump will likely run unopposed.

I could be wrong, but I doubt it.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how these racists who claim to hate Hollywood is using a show created by Hollywood as proof that the Confederate flag isn't that bad .
> 
> But during the same time that show was on, those same Confederate flag waving racists were still hanging black folks...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I only debate my equals, all others I teach...
> 
> And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no, it's too early to have that talk because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...
> 
> And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...
> 
> Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a prof of mine once said: "Those who can't do, teach!"
> 
> PS: You're not spinning hard enough, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why cant you address the point of the post then??
> 
> If someone asked you what time it was -- would you go into a long diatribe about your opposition to interracial marriage instead??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was responding to your stupid post, bringing up your accusation of "racism".
> 
> 
> So, if he was off topic, it is because YOU went there.
Click to expand...

All you Trumpers are dic suckers...I have zero respect for you pussies... because I GUARANTEE YOU, you won't talk that bullshit to me in person...


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
Click to expand...



You whine like a faggot about Morrison going off topic, and then bring up the Nazis and the Holocaust?


LOL!!!


I made no points about slavery, not one. If you think I did, it is because you are fucking retarded.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
Click to expand...


Where you from boy? Who's your friends and family? The only thing Confederates and Nazis have in common is that Confederates and their sons killed Nazis and won WW2, dumbass.

It seems you're misguided on that Civil War thing: They were all Americans.
North and South.

If they weren't, it would not be called "The Civil War".


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> IDK who didn't know it by the OP, but there are no good black candidates are on the horizon for Republicans this year.
> 
> 
> Trump will likely run unopposed.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I doubt it.





That has been covered. Biff knows it. He just thinks that that is some form of a "gotcha", for some reason.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I lived in America for the entire time the show ran and didn't know anyone who even watched it, let alone "loved it".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family included some people that liked the Dukes of Hazzard and some that did not.
> 
> 
> Educated? Quite possibly. Lot of blue collar in my past and present.
> 
> 
> Oh, was that supposed to make me feel bad or intimidate me?
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm PROUD of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. I would not stoop to the juvenile  level of attempting to intimidate a complete stranger on a dumbass message board. So be as proud as you want to, it's your right.
> 
> You implied that my circle of friends are not diverse, and I responded and corrected you.
> 
> No more, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just guessing at your vague intent with your off topic question. And you seem like the type.
> 
> 
> My point stands. The Dukes of Hazzard was one of the highest rated shows of the time. If you managed to not have ANY fans in your circle of friends, that sounds like you are the one being really narrow minded.
Click to expand...


What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?

I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.

No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.

I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thus goes the SJW talking points.
> 
> 
> 
> I only debate my equals, all others I teach...
> 
> And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no, it's too early to have that talk because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...
> 
> And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...
> 
> Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As a prof of mine once said: "Those who can't do, teach!"
> 
> PS: You're not spinning hard enough, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why cant you address the point of the post then??
> 
> If someone asked you what time it was -- would you go into a long diatribe about your opposition to interracial marriage instead??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was responding to your stupid post, bringing up your accusation of "racism".
> 
> 
> So, if he was off topic, it is because YOU went there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you Trumpers are dic suckers...I have zero respect for you pussies... because I GUARANTEE YOU, you won't talk that bullshit to me in person...
Click to expand...



You are the one calling people dick suckers, for no reason. The question is, would you talk to people like that, if you were not safe behind your computer screen.


I've talked to lots of libs, in bars and places like that. I've never ran into one half, even a TENTH as rude as you libs are, online. 


Might be because I'm a little on the bigger side. ANd assholes tend to be cowards, in my experience. 


Or maybe it is just because the assholes really, really tend to congregate online. I don't know.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Correll said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDK who didn't know it by the OP, but there are no good black candidates are on the horizon for Republicans this year.
> 
> 
> Trump will likely run unopposed.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has been covered. Biff knows it. He just thinks that that is some form of a "gotcha", for some reason.
Click to expand...


There's no white candidates to oppose Trump, either.


----------



## Marion Morrison

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family included some people that liked the Dukes of Hazzard and some that did not.
> 
> 
> Educated? Quite possibly. Lot of blue collar in my past and present.
> 
> 
> Oh, was that supposed to make me feel bad or intimidate me?
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm PROUD of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. I would not stoop to the juvenile  level of attempting to intimidate a complete stranger on a dumbass message board. So be as proud as you want to, it's your right.
> 
> You implied that my circle of friends are not diverse, and I responded and corrected you.
> 
> No more, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just guessing at your vague intent with your off topic question. And you seem like the type.
> 
> 
> My point stands. The Dukes of Hazzard was one of the highest rated shows of the time. If you managed to not have ANY fans in your circle of friends, that sounds like you are the one being really narrow minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?
> 
> I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.
> 
> No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.
> 
> I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.
Click to expand...


You never laughed watching "The Dukes of Hazzard"? Have you even watched it?

Boss Hogg with at least 2 bird's worth )maybe more) of fried chicken on a plate all for him? Roscoe P. Coltrain? C'mon now!


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You should widen your circle of friends, to be more diverse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family included some people that liked the Dukes of Hazzard and some that did not.
> 
> 
> Educated? Quite possibly. Lot of blue collar in my past and present.
> 
> 
> Oh, was that supposed to make me feel bad or intimidate me?
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm PROUD of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. I would not stoop to the juvenile  level of attempting to intimidate a complete stranger on a dumbass message board. So be as proud as you want to, it's your right.
> 
> You implied that my circle of friends are not diverse, and I responded and corrected you.
> 
> No more, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just guessing at your vague intent with your off topic question. And you seem like the type.
> 
> 
> My point stands. The Dukes of Hazzard was one of the highest rated shows of the time. If you managed to not have ANY fans in your circle of friends, that sounds like you are the one being really narrow minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?
> 
> I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.
> 
> No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.
> 
> I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.
Click to expand...



1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans. 


2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> IDK who didn't know it by the OP, but there are no good black candidates are on the horizon for Republicans this year.
> 
> 
> Trump will likely run unopposed.
> 
> I could be wrong, but I doubt it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has been covered. Biff knows it. He just thinks that that is some form of a "gotcha", for some reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no white candidates to oppose Trump, either.
Click to expand...



Yes, but somehow that doesn't seem to matter to him. His position does not make any sense of course. As is normal for libs.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only debate my equals, all others I teach...
> 
> And once again...this post was about who would be possible black republican presidential candidates...and dont give me no, it's too early to have that talk because you dumb asses are already talking about trump Jr, Ivanka being candidates...
> 
> And instead of that discussion, you dic suckers still talking about slavery and the civil war...
> 
> Which is why there is no debate ...you are a moron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a prof of mine once said: "Those who can't do, teach!"
> 
> PS: You're not spinning hard enough, cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why cant you address the point of the post then??
> 
> If someone asked you what time it was -- would you go into a long diatribe about your opposition to interracial marriage instead??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was responding to your stupid post, bringing up your accusation of "racism".
> 
> 
> So, if he was off topic, it is because YOU went there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you Trumpers are dic suckers...I have zero respect for you pussies... because I GUARANTEE YOU, you won't talk that bullshit to me in person...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one calling people dick suckers, for no reason. The question is, would you talk to people like that, if you were not safe behind your computer screen.
> 
> 
> I've talked to lots of libs, in bars and places like that. I've never ran into one half, even a TENTH as rude as you libs are, online.
> 
> 
> Might be because I'm a little on the bigger side. ANd assholes tend to be cowards, in my experience.
> 
> 
> Or maybe it is just because the assholes really, really tend to congregate online. I don't know.
Click to expand...


OR...there's more paid shills online. I vote for the latter.

Probably not too many Republican paid shills.

Not saying there are none, but the leftist effort is obvious.

TBH, I don't like that hyper-partisan stuff anyways.

It all makes me cringe.


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a prof of mine once said: "Those who can't do, teach!"
> 
> PS: You're not spinning hard enough, cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> Why cant you address the point of the post then??
> 
> If someone asked you what time it was -- would you go into a long diatribe about your opposition to interracial marriage instead??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was responding to your stupid post, bringing up your accusation of "racism".
> 
> 
> So, if he was off topic, it is because YOU went there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you Trumpers are dic suckers...I have zero respect for you pussies... because I GUARANTEE YOU, you won't talk that bullshit to me in person...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one calling people dick suckers, for no reason. The question is, would you talk to people like that, if you were not safe behind your computer screen.
> 
> 
> I've talked to lots of libs, in bars and places like that. I've never ran into one half, even a TENTH as rude as you libs are, online.
> 
> 
> Might be because I'm a little on the bigger side. ANd assholes tend to be cowards, in my experience.
> 
> 
> Or maybe it is just because the assholes really, really tend to congregate online. I don't know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OR...there's more paid shills online. I vote for the latter.
Click to expand...



The way they stonewall, when they have been stone cold busted, and look like complete fucking assholes for not admitting it?

That would make a lot of sense, if they were being paid to never give an inch, not matter how fucking retarded they end up looking.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family is likely far more diverse as well as more educated than yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family included some people that liked the Dukes of Hazzard and some that did not.
> 
> 
> Educated? Quite possibly. Lot of blue collar in my past and present.
> 
> 
> Oh, was that supposed to make me feel bad or intimidate me?
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm PROUD of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. I would not stoop to the juvenile  level of attempting to intimidate a complete stranger on a dumbass message board. So be as proud as you want to, it's your right.
> 
> You implied that my circle of friends are not diverse, and I responded and corrected you.
> 
> No more, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just guessing at your vague intent with your off topic question. And you seem like the type.
> 
> 
> My point stands. The Dukes of Hazzard was one of the highest rated shows of the time. If you managed to not have ANY fans in your circle of friends, that sounds like you are the one being really narrow minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?
> 
> I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.
> 
> No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.
> 
> I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans.
> 
> 
> 2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.
Click to expand...



I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.

Obviously at my age, a few have died.

I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.

Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is racist. Your comment says that blacks are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need white liberals to tell us what to think because we wouldn't know without them. That's pure d racism so.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.
> 
> _White liberals_ believe that.
> 
> So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
Click to expand...

Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.  

Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My circle of friends and family included some people that liked the Dukes of Hazzard and some that did not.
> 
> 
> Educated? Quite possibly. Lot of blue collar in my past and present.
> 
> 
> Oh, was that supposed to make me feel bad or intimidate me?
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm PROUD of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. I would not stoop to the juvenile  level of attempting to intimidate a complete stranger on a dumbass message board. So be as proud as you want to, it's your right.
> 
> You implied that my circle of friends are not diverse, and I responded and corrected you.
> 
> No more, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just guessing at your vague intent with your off topic question. And you seem like the type.
> 
> 
> My point stands. The Dukes of Hazzard was one of the highest rated shows of the time. If you managed to not have ANY fans in your circle of friends, that sounds like you are the one being really narrow minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?
> 
> I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.
> 
> No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.
> 
> I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans.
> 
> 
> 2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.
> 
> Obviously at my age, a few have died.
> 
> I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.
> 
> Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.
Click to expand...




I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke. 


None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
> 
> Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.
Click to expand...

Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.  

_Exactly as they want you to_.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is racist. Your comment says that blacks are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need white liberals to tell us what to think because we wouldn't know without them. That's pure d racism so.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.
> 
> _White liberals_ believe that.
> 
> So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
Click to expand...


I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.


----------



## Correll

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
> 
> 
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
> 
> Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.
> 
> _Exactly as they want you to_.
Click to expand...



I've pointed out to him, that the way I call him on the stupid shit he says, is actually a sign of respect, in that I judge his words based on their merits, instead of giving him a pass because of his skin color, like his white lib allies.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is racist. Your comment says that blacks are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need white liberals to tell us what to think because we wouldn't know without them. That's pure d racism so.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.
> 
> _White liberals_ believe that.
> 
> So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
Click to expand...



You showed him, that you can't think, and expect that your silliness will be validated by people, because you deserve it, for some reason....


What reason could it be? MMMM.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
> 
> 
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
> 
> Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.
> 
> _Exactly as they want you to_.
Click to expand...


And more racism by the daveman.  You see faggot, I live black. I don't need anybody white to tell me shit. I've whipped racisms ass my entire life and a number of racists to go with it. So now that I'm old, I damn sure won't be listening to a punk ass homosexual republican trying to tell me how I should see things when I see things quite fine.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
> 
> Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.
> 
> _Exactly as they want you to_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more racism by the daveman.  You see faggot, I live black. I don't need anybody white to tell me shit. I've whipped racisms ass my entire life and a number of racists to go with it. So now that I'm old, I damn sure won't be listening to a punk ass homosexual republican trying to tell me how I should see things when I see things quite fine.
Click to expand...




I want you to understand how little your boasting impresses me, or your having "lived black".


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh I see you have a laundry list of EXCUSES for why black tribes sold slaves. You of course realize that black tribes had been taking slaves for about a 1000 years by then and simply found a more profitable way to use them? That IN FACT some blacks STILL TO THIS DAY ENSLAVE other blacks? What is your excuse for THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> If they were excuses I wouldn't be making them. But what they show is what you don't want to see. Therefore you try dismissing it. Whites had slaves for the same 1000 years.  Still to this day whites enslave other whites. But you see, the deal here is that blacks slaves in Africa somehow could get out of slavery by repaying their debt or serving their time for crimes committed. They could own property and purchase their freedom and some even became kings. I don't think a serf was able to do that. Now would you like to talk about what happened to blacks after slavery ended? Or did blacks create Jim Crow segregation too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL more excuses, just accept the fact you are racist and whites for you are the boggy man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only excuse being made is blacks sold each other into slavery. A black Ugandan doesn't consider himself the same as a black Algerian. This is another reason why I say your story is disingenuous. So why did whites buy the slaves? They didn't have to retardedsgt. WHY DIDN'T THEY ENSLAVE THEIR OWN?
Click to expand...

Oh, but they did.

Europeans in America owned other Europeans as slaves.  

Africans owned European slaves.  

African slaves still enslave each other.

It looks like there's a lot of history you're ignorant about.  You can cure that ignorance.

But I don't think you want to.


----------



## daveman

Biff_Poindexter said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how I am still the only one who has named any possible black republican candidates...
> 
> And instead of Trumpers discussing the merit of these candidates -- they are still trying to argue against easily verifiable facts from 50 plus years ago..
> 
> It's almost like there is some pathological compulsion to keep fighting a war they lost since 1865...
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans won the Civil War.  Democrats lost.
> 
> And Democrats have never forgiven us for taking their slaves away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since you are another disingenuous coward who purposely avoids using the term conservative and liberal..
> 
> Please tell me how many Democrats are currently whining like a bitch every time a monument to Confederate traitors gets removed?? Republicans or Democrats?
> 
> Please tell me what party (TODAY, not 60 yrs ago) keeps having record numbers of neo Nazis running for office... republicans or Democrats??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I figured yo sissified ass would stick your fingers in your ears and pretend reality doesn't exist....
> 
> You dic suckers lost back then and you continue to lose now ..so much so that you can't even admit that the only one who glorifies and romanticizes the cause of the "Cons"  back then are "Cons" of today..cons as in conservative....it was conservatives who felt the need to come up with the lost cause strategy to try to water down their own abject racism
> 
> I damn sure don't see these flags at any Bernie rallies...but I damn sure see them at all the Trump rallies
> View attachment 313340
Click to expand...

So...you don't have a rational definition of neo-Nazi.

You really DO believe it's someone who disagrees with liberals.

Run along now, kid.  You simply can't be taken seriously.


----------



## daveman

Faun said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting claim. How would you back that up?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I lie to them like that?
Click to expand...

Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it did. IN the early 1860s, it stood for an army of the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> Not long after that, it slowly morphed into a harmless symbol of regional pride.
> 
> 
> And has been accepted as such, by America as a whole, for over 5 generations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "America as a whole"?
> 
> Hardly. I've been to the majority of the states in this country, have quite a few active and retired educators in my family from states all over America, and heard many different views on it....very few of which view it as a "long standing, harmless symbol of regional pride", as you call it.
> 
> Outside of the south, and among a minuscule fringe of states rights sympathizers, it does not get much positive recognition.
> 
> At all.
> 
> But, I'm all for letting it fly, as a teachable example to future generations of what it's history stands for.
> 
> The photo below was taken within the "5 generation," period of "regional pride" that you reference, and I remember seeing some scenes like this, up close and personal when with my parents at civil rights marches in the south during the 1960's.
> 
> View attachment 313321
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard represented the flag, as demonstrated with my pic of the Gen Lee, and it's owners and their very attractive cousin,
> 
> 
> as a harmless symbol of regional pride, celebrated by sympathetic and attractive main characters, and the nation as a whole* accepted that without any shock or surprise.*
> 
> Indeed, that show became a NATIONAL hit, loved as good, harmless, fluff entertainment by fans all over this nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Harmless symbol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you defer to THAT guy and not the Union Veterans from the blue and grey gettysberg reunion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because THAT guy symbolizes why the Confederate flag is so offensive.
> After a relatively short war, that flag came to represent oppression of Civil Rights.
> 
> People who are marching to VOTE get faced with morons who wave that flag to remind them of their real status in our society.
Click to expand...

Oh, I get it.  You mean like when Democrats steal people's American flags and burn them.  They want everyone else to hate America like they do.


----------



## otto105

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....




*The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be.....Said no republic ever....*


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a dictionary to you? You don't adhere to the full definition anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean treat all the meanings listed as one and the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? You do understand that when there is more than one definition of a word in the dictionary that there is more than one definition of the word, yes? Ergo, there is more to the word "racism" than just _"...a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural..." _ It also entails hatred or intolerance of another race or racial prejudice or discrimination, as further defined by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's.
> 
> Now, when you say_ "To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman.", _this is true. But it's not the only definition of the word. It is also defined as racial prejudice, among other things. Which means, when a black guy spits on me because I'm white, he was being racist. Black racism, not to put too fine a point on it.
> It also means that when IM2 assumed I concocted my story of black racism, that falls under the "prejudice" definition of the word racism. He prejudged me a liar because I'm white and dared to claim that black racism exists. There was no other reason for him to make that assumption as he had no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you really arrived late to the brain line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, given that you seem to think that one dictionary definition cancels out the other definitions, I'm thinking maybe I got there ahead of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, it's the old "you seem to think" strawman erection..
Click to expand...


Can I take that to mean then you do know that "racism" is also defined as hatred, intolerance and prejudice against other races? If so, do you then understand that racism is more than just white discrimination against blacks?



> Yep, racism is whatever you want it to be.



You mean like you did when you said the power dynamic is implicit in the definition? 

It's not whatever I want it to be, it's right there in the dictionary definition that _you_ cited you imbecile. You know, the part of the definition you conveniently left out. 

It probably never occurred to you that I would actually click on the link and see the entire definition. That had to be the only reason you left that part out.



> Your privilege at work. Enjoy.



Yeah, it was a real privilege to have a black guy spit on me and another one to call me a liar for no reason. I should be more tolerant.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Jitss617 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So? Doesn't mean they didn't fight to keep slavery legal. Slavery was at the heart of the economy in the south, regardless of who owned slaves. That's why they didn't want to lose it.
> 
> Of course, I'm explaining that to a dolt who can't even properly spell a two letter word, even after being shown the correct spelling, so there's no hope of you understanding any of this.
> 
> 
> 
> How to handle slavery was ONE of the reasons.. why do you need to lie to black people? If you ever saw a recruiting newspaper clippings they never once mentioned slavery. Lol it talks about succession protect the LAND FROM INVADERS! Most didn’t know what was going on. No need to lie to blacks.. get A education lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell that to the free blacks that joined lol latinos, asians, Indians.. GET AN EDUCATION LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond stupid. Arguing slavery wasn't a main cause because some blacks worked on the side of the confederacy is as moronic as claiming killing Jews wasn't a big part of the Holocaust because some Jews worked on the side of the nazis.
> 
> And what made those blacks free...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It absolutely wasn’t, said by BOTH LEADERS View attachment 313368GET AN EDUCATION !
Click to expand...

9 of the 11 States that left the UNION specifically said they left to ENSURE slavery was allowed.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh I see you have a laundry list of EXCUSES for why black tribes sold slaves. You of course realize that black tribes had been taking slaves for about a 1000 years by then and simply found a more profitable way to use them? That IN FACT some blacks STILL TO THIS DAY ENSLAVE other blacks? What is your excuse for THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> If they were excuses I wouldn't be making them. But what they show is what you don't want to see. Therefore you try dismissing it. Whites had slaves for the same 1000 years.  Still to this day whites enslave other whites. But you see, the deal here is that blacks slaves in Africa somehow could get out of slavery by repaying their debt or serving their time for crimes committed. They could own property and purchase their freedom and some even became kings. I don't think a serf was able to do that. Now would you like to talk about what happened to blacks after slavery ended? Or did blacks create Jim Crow segregation too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL more excuses, just accept the fact you are racist and whites for you are the boggy man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only excuse being made is blacks sold each other into slavery. A black Ugandan doesn't consider himself the same as a black Algerian. This is another reason why I say your story is disingenuous. So why did whites buy the slaves? They didn't have to retardedsgt. WHY DIDN'T THEY ENSLAVE THEIR OWN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but they did.
> 
> Europeans in America owned other Europeans as slaves.
> 
> Africans owned European slaves.
> 
> African slaves still enslave each other.
> 
> It looks like there's a lot of history you're ignorant about.  You can cure that ignorance.
> 
> But I don't think you want to.
Click to expand...

You really should  not fuck with me about this son. I know more than you about this matter. Irish historians tell us that Irish were not slaves in the Americas.

*Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan takes aim at this notion in a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.”  There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says.*

https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-irish-were-not-slaves
Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too
There were no Irish slaves — here’s how bad history became a racist meme
All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)

1.2 million whites were enslaved mostly on the Barbary coast. I'll use your own link now to show how disingenuous your argument is.

*"Barbary Pirates also known as Barbary Corsairs were involved in the captivity of European slaves and  attacks on European coastal villages. However, just like African slave traders, the most prominent Barbary pirates were indeed European renegades, historian Adrian Tinniswood states."*

Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, race was not the the only qualification for slavery. Again. I'll use your own link..

*“Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. Contemporaries were too aware of the sort of people enslaved in North Africa to believe, as many do today, that slavery, whether in Barbary or the Americas, was a matter of race. In the 1600s, no one’s racial background or religion automatically destined him or her for enslavement."
*
The transatlantic slave trade had how many slaves? 20-30 million? Whites still enslave each other also.

Modern Slavery in Europe
‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
‘Modern Slavery’ Ring in U.K. Ensnared up to 400 Polish People, Authorities Say
Modern slavery is a reality also in Europe

Now would you like to go on past slavery ad include the 100 years after slavery until the civil rights act?

Now try telling me how blacks created Jim Crow.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I lie to them like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.
Click to expand...


Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can lead these troll bots to a dictionary but you can't make them think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What good is a dictionary to you? You don't adhere to the full definition anyway.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean treat all the meanings listed as one and the same?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're kidding, right? You do understand that when there is more than one definition of a word in the dictionary that there is more than one definition of the word, yes? Ergo, there is more to the word "racism" than just _"...a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural..." _ It also entails hatred or intolerance of another race or racial prejudice or discrimination, as further defined by Dictionary.com and Merriam-Webster's.
> 
> Now, when you say_ "To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman.", _this is true. But it's not the only definition of the word. It is also defined as racial prejudice, among other things. Which means, when a black guy spits on me because I'm white, he was being racist. Black racism, not to put too fine a point on it.
> It also means that when IM2 assumed I concocted my story of black racism, that falls under the "prejudice" definition of the word racism. He prejudged me a liar because I'm white and dared to claim that black racism exists. There was no other reason for him to make that assumption as he had no evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, you really arrived late to the brain line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know, given that you seem to think that one dictionary definition cancels out the other definitions, I'm thinking maybe I got there ahead of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh, it's the old "you seem to think" strawman erection..
> Yep, racism is whatever you want it to be. Your privilege at work. Enjoy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Poor ghost, so butthurt because I refuse to say he was a victim of racism.
Click to expand...


My problem with you is, and always has been, your accusing me of concocting the story asswipe. The argument that it wasn't black racism didn't come until later. 



> Yet he denies blacks have been victims of racism by whites for 243 years.



This is a blatant lie. I never denied any such thing.

Again, this is the same problem I had with you in the past. I had to correct you four or five times back then because you mistakenly thought I had said something that another poster actually said. You couldn't even remember who you were talking to half the time for fuck's sake. It's no wonder you kept getting my story wrong. 



> The guy spit on you because you ran and told the boss on him.



The guy was being disruptive and making the atmosphere on the vessel unnecessarily tense. It was my duty to do something about that. Since he would not sit down and work it out with me, I had no choice but to ask our supervisor to mediate. Does this not make sense to you? 

When I talked to the supervisor, it was _only_ to mediate. I never asked for any disciplinary action to be taken and none was. No disciplinary action was taken until the asshole decided to spit on me a week later. 



> Now you can try equating that to 243 years of whites enforcing their racism on us by laws and policies if you want to, but it's a false equivalence with no merit.



Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist. 



> You're whining about an event that had no adverse impact upon you.



You call me racist; did anything I ever said to you in the past have adverse impacts on you?



> The black guy lost his job. But blacks get spit on by whites and then get fired because they complain about getting spit on. So fuck ghost rider up his ass with no Vaseline, whining bitch.



You can "Fuck Ghost of a Rider and fuckety fuckety fuck fuck up his ass fuckety and puckety and muckety fuck fuck fuck whiny bitch fuckadoo fuckaroo and fuckapoo" all you want, you accused me without cause or evidence of concocting my story and the only reason you did is because I'm white and I don't prostrate myself and self-flagellate before you as so many other whites here do.

Speaking of whiny bitches, how many threads on white racism have you started today?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.


LOL.
So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
Click to expand...


It is a false equivalence. He spit on you because he thought you were picking in him, not because you were white. You ran and told the boss on him which you claim you are required to do, but I seriously doubt if you did that to your white buddies, which he probably saw daily and that also would have created the anger. But certainly you will now try telling everybody that the white workers always wore their gloves in order to keep trying to validate your tale. But that story is not equivalent to 243 years of racist laws, public and private policy that have hampered blacks on jobs like  the one you worked.

So tell us ghost, how long had that black guy worked there? How long had you? Because according to your classic white racist story, he and another black man worked there but of course they were lazy and never could do the job, while all the white workers were exceptional hard working types. What this looks like to me is that you didn't want to work with blacks and found a reason to try getting him fired so you saw him without gloves on and ran to your super to report him.

You have not faced racism. Racism would have been a black boss letting him keep the job after he spit on you and getting a raise/promotion while you get fired. That's what we face asshole and until you have faced things like that, don't make false  equivalences.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO. I would not stoop to the juvenile  level of attempting to intimidate a complete stranger on a dumbass message board. So be as proud as you want to, it's your right.
> 
> You implied that my circle of friends are not diverse, and I responded and corrected you.
> 
> No more, no less.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just guessing at your vague intent with your off topic question. And you seem like the type.
> 
> 
> My point stands. The Dukes of Hazzard was one of the highest rated shows of the time. If you managed to not have ANY fans in your circle of friends, that sounds like you are the one being really narrow minded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?
> 
> I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.
> 
> No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.
> 
> I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans.
> 
> 
> 2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.
> 
> Obviously at my age, a few have died.
> 
> I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.
> 
> Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.
> 
> 
> None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.
Click to expand...


If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.

It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.


It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.


I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.

It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.

12 Types of Target Audience


----------



## rightwinger

Jitss617 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why lie?
> 
> Slavery was the primary issue.
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is all part of the Lost Cause propaganda.
> Slavery was not so bad, they were better off than in Africa.......oh, did you know blacks owned slaves too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
Click to expand...

There were 4 million slaves. Cotton was picked by hand until the 1930s.
Slavery was not going anywhere 

It still took a hundred years before the South was forced to give blacks equal rights


----------



## rightwinger

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
Click to expand...

Superficial Patriot. 

The real Patriots of his era fought in WWII. Wayne made movies about fighting and pretended it was him.


----------



## rightwinger

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
Click to expand...

He still defends Nazis


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
Click to expand...


You are the one deferring to the racist black, IM2, who's position is that blacks cannot be racist.

In response to that, his example is a valid counterpoint.

Your responding with ridicule, is just you being a jerk.  And losing the debate.


Blacks can be racist. YOU KNOW THAT. That is his point.

But you are also racist. Against whites. 


You are attacking him, for saying something you agree with, ie that blacks can be racist.


Because you don't believe that whites have the moral right to speak out on this issues, especially against blacks.



That is considering blacks superior to whites. Based on race. 


You are a racist. 


All you have to do to "fight racism" and "make the world a better place".


is stop doing that.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired.
Click to expand...


Incredible. I specifically said I asked the supervisor to mediate a discussion between us. That's it.

Is your reading comprehension really that bad or are you just so invested in trying to make me look foolish at this point that you can't come up with anything intelligent?



> You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!



Questioning my manhood? Really? How much of your dignity did you have to sell to come up with that one?


----------



## Grumblenuts

It's like non stop... The Blubbering... Wonnerful!, Wonnerful!... Turn off the Blubber Machine!!!


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just guessing at your vague intent with your off topic question. And you seem like the type.
> 
> 
> My point stands. The Dukes of Hazzard was one of the highest rated shows of the time. If you managed to not have ANY fans in your circle of friends, that sounds like you are the one being really narrow minded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?
> 
> I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.
> 
> No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.
> 
> I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans.
> 
> 
> 2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.
> 
> Obviously at my age, a few have died.
> 
> I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.
> 
> Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.
> 
> 
> None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.
> 
> It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.
> 
> 
> It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.
> 
> 
> I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.
> 
> It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.
> 
> 12 Types of Target Audience
Click to expand...



Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.


You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.



The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia


The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.


It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.


That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited. 



You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.


This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not. 


"And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.

"The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"


"Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."



"I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.

Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."




"The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.

Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.

Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.

Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.

James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."





You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong. 


This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.


It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong. 


But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.


Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole. 


You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?



EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I dunno, perhaps John Wayne was ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He still defends Nazis
Click to expand...



Fuck you you liar.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Incredible. I specifically said I asked the supervisor to mediate a discussion between us. That's it.
> 
> Is your reading comprehension really that bad or are you just so invested in trying to make me look foolish at this point that you can't come up with anything intelligent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Questioning my manhood? Really? How much of your dignity did you have to sell to come up with that one?
Click to expand...




The position is being argued is that blacks CAN'T be racist. 


Your example is obviously a valid counter point to that.


FOr grumblenuts to pretend otherwise, is pathetic.


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?
> 
> I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.
> 
> No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.
> 
> I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans.
> 
> 
> 2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.
> 
> Obviously at my age, a few have died.
> 
> I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.
> 
> Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.
> 
> 
> None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.
> 
> It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.
> 
> 
> It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.
> 
> 
> I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.
> 
> It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.
> 
> 12 Types of Target Audience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.
> 
> 
> You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.
> 
> 
> It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.
> 
> 
> That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.
> 
> 
> This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.
> 
> 
> "And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"
> 
> 
> "Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> "I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.
> 
> Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.
> 
> Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.
> 
> Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.
> 
> Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.
> 
> James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.
> 
> 
> It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.
> 
> 
> But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.
> 
> 
> You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.
Click to expand...

Good God, will you get off The Dukes of Hazard shit?

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


----------



## rightwinger

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> 
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He still defends Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you liar.
Click to expand...


Some of them are good people.....


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans.
> 
> 
> 2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.
> 
> Obviously at my age, a few have died.
> 
> I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.
> 
> Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.
> 
> 
> None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.
> 
> It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.
> 
> 
> It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.
> 
> 
> I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.
> 
> It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.
> 
> 12 Types of Target Audience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.
> 
> 
> You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.
> 
> 
> It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.
> 
> 
> That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.
> 
> 
> This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.
> 
> 
> "And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"
> 
> 
> "Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> "I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.
> 
> Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.
> 
> Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.
> 
> Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.
> 
> Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.
> 
> James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.
> 
> 
> It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.
> 
> 
> But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.
> 
> 
> You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good God, will you get off The Dukes of Hazard shit?
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
Click to expand...



1. It was not racist.

2. It was not written for morons.

3. You are an asshole.




"The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.

Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.

Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.

Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had."


----------



## Correll

rightwinger said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He still defends Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them are good people.....
Click to expand...



Which neither I nor the President ever said, about nazis, you fucking liar. 

YOu are a lying piece of shit.


----------



## MeBelle

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not an SJW pussy like you. A Patriotic American, unlike you.
> 
> 
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He still defends Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you liar.
Click to expand...





gft


----------



## Correll

MeBelle said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eew, seems I struck a noive..
> 
> At least one of us has been an actual Warrior!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He still defends Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gft
Click to expand...


I'm not sure what you mean by that. RW, though, knows that what is he vaguely implying, is a vile lie.


He is a vile liar and an asshole.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "off topic" question did I ask that was "vague"?
> 
> I tend to say what I think without hesitation, and have no need in a forum like this to even consider not being direct.
> 
> No one in my immediate circle of friends found the Dukes of Hazard to be humorous in the least.
> 
> I don't really understand  why you would assume that my circle was any less diverse than yours because of that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans.
> 
> 
> 2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.
> 
> Obviously at my age, a few have died.
> 
> I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.
> 
> Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.
> 
> 
> None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.
> 
> It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.
> 
> 
> It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.
> 
> 
> I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.
> 
> It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.
> 
> 12 Types of Target Audience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.
> 
> 
> You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.
> 
> 
> It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.
> 
> 
> That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.
> 
> 
> This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.
> 
> 
> "And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"
> 
> 
> "Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> "I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.
> 
> Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.
> 
> Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.
> 
> Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.
> 
> Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.
> 
> James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.
> 
> 
> It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.
> 
> 
> But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.
> 
> 
> You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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

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

You are an extremely small and petty individual.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Standard lib tactic. Be an asshole, and then when the person you are being an asshole to, responds appropriately, pretend that normal and healthy reaction is THEM being unreasonable.
> 
> 
> Strangely effective, if you control the conversation, or have the mods on your side, or a pack of mindless jackals to howl down any comebacks.
> 
> 
> All it requires is that you have the honesty and self respect of a crack whore.
> 
> 
> So, libs wallow in it.
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He still defends Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them are good people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which neither I nor the President ever said, about nazis, you fucking liar.
> 
> YOu are a lying piece of shit.
Click to expand...

But some Nazis are fine people -- because Hollywood made a TV show about them and they were wacky and fun....so that means being a Nazi wasn't that bad....because Hogan's Heroes was a popular show...
 

That also means when Nazis of today wave that same Nazi flag -- it doesn't mean they were the bad Nazis who exterminated 6 million Jews -- we should look at them as the wacky fun Nazis from the hit TV show...
 

Racists like Cory L have have been on the losing side of history for so long -- they don't even care how increasingly delusional their justifications for their racism becomes.....they are the Glass Joe of debating...easy to knock out


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because it was a huge hit, and you managed to select a circle of friends that contained none of the millions of fans.
> 
> 
> 2. Your intent as to bringing up education levels was vague. So I guessed. Still don't know why you brought it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.
> 
> Obviously at my age, a few have died.
> 
> I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.
> 
> Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.
> 
> 
> None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.
> 
> It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.
> 
> 
> It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.
> 
> 
> I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.
> 
> It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.
> 
> 12 Types of Target Audience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.
> 
> 
> You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.
> 
> 
> It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.
> 
> 
> That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.
> 
> 
> This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.
> 
> 
> "And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"
> 
> 
> "Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> "I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.
> 
> Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.
> 
> Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.
> 
> Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.
> 
> Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.
> 
> James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.
> 
> 
> It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.
> 
> 
> But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.
> 
> 
> You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did.
> 
> For you to question my personal preferences as far as television shows, truly makes you someone who clearly has too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
Click to expand...



Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession. 


IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.


If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.


If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.


My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are. 


They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.


I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews. 


Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.


If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews. 


So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you spending 99 comments trying run your revisionist history BS about slavery??
> 
> I can guarantee that you would be the same moron in Germany arguing in favor of Nazis and blaming the Holocaust on Jews if not denying the Holocaust at all...which is something you neoconfederates and Nazis have in common
> 
> 
> 
> He still defends Nazis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuck you you liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some of them are good people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Which neither I nor the President ever said, about nazis, you fucking liar.
> 
> YOu are a lying piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But some Nazis are fine people -- because Hollywood made a TV show about them and they were wacky and fun....so that means being a Nazi wasn't that bad....because Hogan's Heroes was a popular show...
> View attachment 313573
> 
> That also means when Nazis of today wave that same Nazi flag -- it doesn't mean they were the bad Nazis who exterminated 6 million Jews -- we should look at them as the wacky fun Nazis from the hit TV show...
> View attachment 313574
> 
> Racists like Cory L have have been on the losing side of history for so long -- they don't even care how increasingly delusional their justifications for their racism becomes.....they are the Glass Joe of debating...easy to knock out
> View attachment 313576
Click to expand...





1. The Nazis in Hogans Heroes were never presented as anything but the bad guys. The humor or wackiness was always at their expense. The audience was never laughing WITH them.

2. Nazis, past and present, are bad guys. Neither I nor the President have ever said differently. THe only way you can make a point that says otherwise, is by LYING.

3. You seem to be too stupid, to even understand what is going on here.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a false equivalence. He spit on you because he thought you were picking in him, not because you were white.
Click to expand...


He thought I was picking on him _because I'm white_.



> You ran and told the boss on him which you claim you are required to do, but I seriously doubt if you did that to your white buddies, which he probably saw daily and that also would have created the anger.



That's a lot of speculation and doubt on your part considering that you have already been told all the details of this story. 

Essentially you're assuming that he was right; that I was picking on him and the other black guy and did not treat the white crewmembers the same. So tell me, why would you assume this if not because I'm white?



> But certainly you will now try telling everybody that the white workers always wore their gloves in order to keep trying to validate your tale.



More assumption and speculation. No, the white workers didn't always wear their gloves and when they didn't, I corrected them.

I told you already back then when we first discussed this that it was this guy's first hitch with the company and he had only been on the vessel for a week when all this went down.  



> But that story is not equivalent to 243 years of racist laws, public and private policy that have hampered blacks on jobs like  the one you worked.



If I have a responsibility to enforce company safety policies, I don't give a shit about 243 years of racist laws and policies and that is irrelevant anyway. It was his responsibility to comply with company safety procedures of which he was apprised when he hired on. He was told when he was hired and knew full well that company policy dictated that he wear gloves and safety glasses when performing any task.  



> So tell us ghost, how long had that black guy worked there? How long had you?



Why are you asking these questions? You were told all this back then. The guy had just hired on and had only been on the vessel a week. I had been with the company about fifteen years at that point.



> Because according to your classic white racist story, he and another black man worked there but of course they were lazy and never could do the job, while all the white workers were exceptional hard working types.



This is an absolute and unequivocal lie and WRONG. I never said they were lazy and couldn't do the job. Neither of them were lazy and they performed their jobs just fine. He just had a momentary lapse in compliance with safety rules and I simply reminded him of that. 

You have been told all this numerous times in the past. Why do you persist in getting everything wrong?

Also, I've had to ask the company to remove lazy and incompetent crewmembers from the vessel three or four times throughout my career and every one of them was white. As far as levels of competence, work ethic and diligence, the line fell pretty much right down the middle of racial lines. In my experience I never found that one race was generally more competent or more lazy than the other. 



> What this looks like to me is that you didn't want to work with blacks and found a reason to try getting him fired so you saw him without gloves on and ran to your super to report him.



Once again, completely wrong. I didn't report to anybody about the gloves. The gloves were not the issue and was not a job-terminating offense anyway. I asked the supervisor to come and mediate a discussion because the guy was being an asshole and was making things tense on the vessel. I made an effort to resolve the situation through discussion and got spit on for my trouble.



> You have not faced racism. Racism would have been a black boss letting him keep the job after he spit on you and getting a raise/promotion while you get fired. That's what we face asshole and until you have faced things like that, don't make false  equivalences.



Oh please. Who's being the whiny bitch? A black employee is asked to comply with company safety rules that he was well aware of and you bring up "243 years of laws and policies and blah blah blah..." Jesus what a racist windbag.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a false equivalence. He spit on you because he thought you were picking in him, not because you were white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thought I was picking on him _because I'm white_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ran and told the boss on him which you claim you are required to do, but I seriously doubt if you did that to your white buddies, which he probably saw daily and that also would have created the anger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lot of speculation and doubt on your part considering that you have already been told all the details of this story.
> 
> Essentially you're assuming that he was right; that I was picking on him and the other black guy and did not treat the white crewmembers the same. So tell me, why would you assume this if not because I'm white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But certainly you will now try telling everybody that the white workers always wore their gloves in order to keep trying to validate your tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More assumption and speculation. No, the white workers didn't always wear their gloves and when they didn't, I corrected them.
> 
> I told you already back then when we first discussed this that it was this guy's first hitch with the company and he had only been on the vessel for a week when all this went down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that story is not equivalent to 243 years of racist laws, public and private policy that have hampered blacks on jobs like  the one you worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a responsibility to enforce company safety policies, I don't give a shit about 243 years of racist laws and policies and that is irrelevant anyway. It was his responsibility to comply with company safety procedures of which he was apprised when he hired on. He was told when he was hired and knew full well that company policy dictated that he wear gloves and safety glasses when performing any task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us ghost, how long had that black guy worked there? How long had you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking these questions? You were told all this back then. The guy had just hired on and had only been on the vessel a week. I had been with the company about fifteen years at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because according to your classic white racist story, he and another black man worked there but of course they were lazy and never could do the job, while all the white workers were exceptional hard working types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an absolute and unequivocal lie and WRONG. I never said they were lazy and couldn't do the job. Neither of them were lazy and they performed their jobs just fine. He just had a momentary lapse in compliance with safety rules and I simply reminded him of that.
> 
> You have been told all this numerous times in the past. Why do you persist in getting everything wrong?
> 
> Also, I've had to ask the company to remove lazy and incompetent crewmembers from the vessel three or four times throughout my career and every one of them was white. As far as levels of competence, work ethic and diligence, the line fell pretty much right down the middle of racial lines. In my experience I never found that one race was generally more competent or more lazy than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this looks like to me is that you didn't want to work with blacks and found a reason to try getting him fired so you saw him without gloves on and ran to your super to report him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, completely wrong. I didn't report to anybody about the gloves. The gloves were not the issue and was not a job-terminating offense anyway. I asked the supervisor to come and mediate a discussion because the guy was being an asshole and was making things tense on the vessel. I made an effort to resolve the situation through discussion and got spit on for my trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not faced racism. Racism would have been a black boss letting him keep the job after he spit on you and getting a raise/promotion while you get fired. That's what we face asshole and until you have faced things like that, don't make false  equivalences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. Who's being the whiny bitch? A black employee is asked to comply with company safety rules that he was well aware of and you bring up "243 years of laws and policies and blah blah blah..." Jesus what a racist windbag.
Click to expand...



A very well written series on on topic points, and wasted on IM2, who is a anti-white racist and will side with the black based on his racism and his being an asshole.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Grumblenuts said:


> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.


Funny thing about that patriotism being their refuge is -- they believe glorifying the Confederacy is patriotic......

Yea, it is....to a racist......

And to recap.....the excuse for them not discussing possible black republican candidates in 2024 is because its too soon and there are none on the horizon.....yet, they can say dumb shit like "Trump Jr 2024!!" --- yet, they couldn't even offer up Candace Owens as a possible candidate because even they know she is a minstrel show....

Also......these revisionist confederates have been reduced to using the Dukes of Hazzard as their defense for their Confederate porn worship....

Sorrell Booke -- a guy born in Buffalo, graduated from both Columbia and Yale -- this guy is now the pantheon of all things Confederate?
Tom Wopat and John Schnieder -- One guy from New York and the other from Wisconsin -- but these guys are your "confederate heroes" now?
Denver Pyle -- a guy born and raised in  Colorado -- died in  Burbank, California -- not in the land of Dixie -- he is the champion of the Confederate cause??

This is how desperate these morons are..........


----------



## Grumblenuts

In a similar vein:
Lonnie was faking it: a look back at 'Dueling Banjos'


----------



## Marion Morrison

Grumblenuts said:


> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.



We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.
Click to expand...

The confederate lost......deal with it


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a false equivalence. He spit on you because he thought you were picking in him, not because you were white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thought I was picking on him _because I'm white_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ran and told the boss on him which you claim you are required to do, but I seriously doubt if you did that to your white buddies, which he probably saw daily and that also would have created the anger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lot of speculation and doubt on your part considering that you have already been told all the details of this story.
> 
> Essentially you're assuming that he was right; that I was picking on him and the other black guy and did not treat the white crewmembers the same. So tell me, why would you assume this if not because I'm white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But certainly you will now try telling everybody that the white workers always wore their gloves in order to keep trying to validate your tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More assumption and speculation. No, the white workers didn't always wear their gloves and when they didn't, I corrected them.
> 
> I told you already back then when we first discussed this that it was this guy's first hitch with the company and he had only been on the vessel for a week when all this went down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that story is not equivalent to 243 years of racist laws, public and private policy that have hampered blacks on jobs like  the one you worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a responsibility to enforce company safety policies, I don't give a shit about 243 years of racist laws and policies and that is irrelevant anyway. It was his responsibility to comply with company safety procedures of which he was apprised when he hired on. He was told when he was hired and knew full well that company policy dictated that he wear gloves and safety glasses when performing any task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us ghost, how long had that black guy worked there? How long had you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking these questions? You were told all this back then. The guy had just hired on and had only been on the vessel a week. I had been with the company about fifteen years at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because according to your classic white racist story, he and another black man worked there but of course they were lazy and never could do the job, while all the white workers were exceptional hard working types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an absolute and unequivocal lie and WRONG. I never said they were lazy and couldn't do the job. Neither of them were lazy and they performed their jobs just fine. He just had a momentary lapse in compliance with safety rules and I simply reminded him of that.
> 
> You have been told all this numerous times in the past. Why do you persist in getting everything wrong?
> 
> Also, I've had to ask the company to remove lazy and incompetent crewmembers from the vessel three or four times throughout my career and every one of them was white. As far as levels of competence, work ethic and diligence, the line fell pretty much right down the middle of racial lines. In my experience I never found that one race was generally more competent or more lazy than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this looks like to me is that you didn't want to work with blacks and found a reason to try getting him fired so you saw him without gloves on and ran to your super to report him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, completely wrong. I didn't report to anybody about the gloves. The gloves were not the issue and was not a job-terminating offense anyway. I asked the supervisor to come and mediate a discussion because the guy was being an asshole and was making things tense on the vessel. I made an effort to resolve the situation through discussion and got spit on for my trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not faced racism. Racism would have been a black boss letting him keep the job after he spit on you and getting a raise/promotion while you get fired. That's what we face asshole and until you have faced things like that, don't make false  equivalences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. Who's being the whiny bitch? A black employee is asked to comply with company safety rules that he was well aware of and you bring up "243 years of laws and policies and blah blah blah..." Jesus what a racist windbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A very well written series on on topic points, and wasted on IM2, who is a anti-white racist and will side with the black based on his racism and his being an asshole.
Click to expand...


I still can't figure out if IM2 is deliberately being obtuse or if he really is so addle-brained he can't keep the details straight.

I say - "I asked him to put on gloves according to established safety rules."
IM2 hears - "Black guys are all lazy and incompetent." 

I say - "The guy thought I was singling him out and started behaving like a dick so I asked the supervisor to mediate a discussion to resolve the situation."
IM2  hears - "I ran to tell the boss on him because he wasn't wearing gloves to get the little black Sambo motherfucker fired because black guys are all lazy and incompetent."

I say - "Even after trying to resolve the issue through discussion, the guy spit on me and that's what got him fired."
IM2 hears - "I tried to get the jigaboo fired for not wearing gloves and so he spit on me and got fired anyway. Ha ha!"

From the very beginning (that is, when he wasn't mistakenly attributing other posters' comments to me) he has conflated, assumed, speculated and outright lied to pad his narrative that I was the racist in the story. He fluffed his argument with whatever bullshit he could inject in there to cast doubt on the fact that the guy simply misunderstood my motives and overreacted.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a false equivalence. He spit on you because he thought you were picking in him, not because you were white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thought I was picking on him _because I'm white_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ran and told the boss on him which you claim you are required to do, but I seriously doubt if you did that to your white buddies, which he probably saw daily and that also would have created the anger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lot of speculation and doubt on your part considering that you have already been told all the details of this story.
> 
> Essentially you're assuming that he was right; that I was picking on him and the other black guy and did not treat the white crewmembers the same. So tell me, why would you assume this if not because I'm white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But certainly you will now try telling everybody that the white workers always wore their gloves in order to keep trying to validate your tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More assumption and speculation. No, the white workers didn't always wear their gloves and when they didn't, I corrected them.
> 
> I told you already back then when we first discussed this that it was this guy's first hitch with the company and he had only been on the vessel for a week when all this went down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that story is not equivalent to 243 years of racist laws, public and private policy that have hampered blacks on jobs like  the one you worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a responsibility to enforce company safety policies, I don't give a shit about 243 years of racist laws and policies and that is irrelevant anyway. It was his responsibility to comply with company safety procedures of which he was apprised when he hired on. He was told when he was hired and knew full well that company policy dictated that he wear gloves and safety glasses when performing any task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us ghost, how long had that black guy worked there? How long had you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking these questions? You were told all this back then. The guy had just hired on and had only been on the vessel a week. I had been with the company about fifteen years at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because according to your classic white racist story, he and another black man worked there but of course they were lazy and never could do the job, while all the white workers were exceptional hard working types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an absolute and unequivocal lie and WRONG. I never said they were lazy and couldn't do the job. Neither of them were lazy and they performed their jobs just fine. He just had a momentary lapse in compliance with safety rules and I simply reminded him of that.
> 
> You have been told all this numerous times in the past. Why do you persist in getting everything wrong?
> 
> Also, I've had to ask the company to remove lazy and incompetent crewmembers from the vessel three or four times throughout my career and every one of them was white. As far as levels of competence, work ethic and diligence, the line fell pretty much right down the middle of racial lines. In my experience I never found that one race was generally more competent or more lazy than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this looks like to me is that you didn't want to work with blacks and found a reason to try getting him fired so you saw him without gloves on and ran to your super to report him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, completely wrong. I didn't report to anybody about the gloves. The gloves were not the issue and was not a job-terminating offense anyway. I asked the supervisor to come and mediate a discussion because the guy was being an asshole and was making things tense on the vessel. I made an effort to resolve the situation through discussion and got spit on for my trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not faced racism. Racism would have been a black boss letting him keep the job after he spit on you and getting a raise/promotion while you get fired. That's what we face asshole and until you have faced things like that, don't make false  equivalences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. Who's being the whiny bitch? A black employee is asked to comply with company safety rules that he was well aware of and you bring up "243 years of laws and policies and blah blah blah..." Jesus what a racist windbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A very well written series on on topic points, and wasted on IM2, who is a anti-white racist and will side with the black based on his racism and his being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't figure out if IM2 is deliberately being obtuse or if he really is so addle-brained he can't keep the details straight.
> 
> I say - "I asked him to put on gloves according to established safety rules."
> IM2 hears - "Black guys are all lazy and incompetent."
> 
> I say - "The guy thought I was singling him out and started behaving like a dick so I asked the supervisor to mediate a discussion to resolve the situation."
> IM2  hears - "I ran to tell the boss on him because he wasn't wearing gloves to get the little black Sambo motherfucker fired because black guys are all lazy and incompetent."
> 
> I say - "Even after trying to resolve the issue through discussion, the guy spit on me and that's what got him fired."
> IM2 hears - "I tried to get the jigaboo fired for not wearing gloves and so he spit on me and got fired anyway. Ha ha!"
> 
> From the very beginning (that is, when he wasn't mistakenly attributing other posters' comments to me) he has conflated, assumed, speculated and outright lied to pad his narrative that I was the racist in the story. He fluffed his argument with whatever bullshit he could inject in there to cast doubt on the fact that the guy simply misunderstood my motives and overreacted.
Click to expand...


It happens..A guy got fired from where I was working for freaking out like that..in 1989.
IM2 reminds me of him..was reading "Malcolm X" for 2 weeks; For me it would be 2 afternoons.
I can still see the black guys on the crew looking at him and shaking their heads.
We were all in that thing together, except him.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.
Click to expand...

We get that John Wayne only pretended to be a WWII warrior. Question remains: _How's your new commie cut-tax-and-spend buddy Trump gonna pay for it?
_
All of a sudden Socialism is all the  rage!


----------



## Marion Morrison

Grumblenuts said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We get that John Wayne only pretended to be a WWII warrior. Question remains: _How's your new commie cut-tax-and-spend buddy Trump gonna pay for it?
> _
> All of a sudden Socialism is all the  rage!
Click to expand...

Not to me.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.





The immediate topic is, can blacks be racist. You agree with him, that they can.


But your stated position is that whites have to defer to blacks on this topic. Because blacks have more moral authority on this subject.

You are pretending to not believe him, so you can avoid having to deal with the topic and the fact that you don't even believe the position you are defending.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh shove that "false equivalence" bullshit up your ass. When a black guy spits on me because he assumed I was picking on him just for asking him to wear gloves as per company safety standards, I'm calling him racist.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a false equivalence. He spit on you because he thought you were picking in him, not because you were white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thought I was picking on him _because I'm white_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ran and told the boss on him which you claim you are required to do, but I seriously doubt if you did that to your white buddies, which he probably saw daily and that also would have created the anger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lot of speculation and doubt on your part considering that you have already been told all the details of this story.
> 
> Essentially you're assuming that he was right; that I was picking on him and the other black guy and did not treat the white crewmembers the same. So tell me, why would you assume this if not because I'm white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But certainly you will now try telling everybody that the white workers always wore their gloves in order to keep trying to validate your tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More assumption and speculation. No, the white workers didn't always wear their gloves and when they didn't, I corrected them.
> 
> I told you already back then when we first discussed this that it was this guy's first hitch with the company and he had only been on the vessel for a week when all this went down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that story is not equivalent to 243 years of racist laws, public and private policy that have hampered blacks on jobs like  the one you worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a responsibility to enforce company safety policies, I don't give a shit about 243 years of racist laws and policies and that is irrelevant anyway. It was his responsibility to comply with company safety procedures of which he was apprised when he hired on. He was told when he was hired and knew full well that company policy dictated that he wear gloves and safety glasses when performing any task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us ghost, how long had that black guy worked there? How long had you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking these questions? You were told all this back then. The guy had just hired on and had only been on the vessel a week. I had been with the company about fifteen years at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because according to your classic white racist story, he and another black man worked there but of course they were lazy and never could do the job, while all the white workers were exceptional hard working types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an absolute and unequivocal lie and WRONG. I never said they were lazy and couldn't do the job. Neither of them were lazy and they performed their jobs just fine. He just had a momentary lapse in compliance with safety rules and I simply reminded him of that.
> 
> You have been told all this numerous times in the past. Why do you persist in getting everything wrong?
> 
> Also, I've had to ask the company to remove lazy and incompetent crewmembers from the vessel three or four times throughout my career and every one of them was white. As far as levels of competence, work ethic and diligence, the line fell pretty much right down the middle of racial lines. In my experience I never found that one race was generally more competent or more lazy than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this looks like to me is that you didn't want to work with blacks and found a reason to try getting him fired so you saw him without gloves on and ran to your super to report him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, completely wrong. I didn't report to anybody about the gloves. The gloves were not the issue and was not a job-terminating offense anyway. I asked the supervisor to come and mediate a discussion because the guy was being an asshole and was making things tense on the vessel. I made an effort to resolve the situation through discussion and got spit on for my trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not faced racism. Racism would have been a black boss letting him keep the job after he spit on you and getting a raise/promotion while you get fired. That's what we face asshole and until you have faced things like that, don't make false  equivalences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. Who's being the whiny bitch? A black employee is asked to comply with company safety rules that he was well aware of and you bring up "243 years of laws and policies and blah blah blah..." Jesus what a racist windbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A very well written series on on topic points, and wasted on IM2, who is a anti-white racist and will side with the black based on his racism and his being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't figure out if IM2 is deliberately being obtuse or if he really is so addle-brained he can't keep the details straight.
> 
> I say - "I asked him to put on gloves according to established safety rules."
> IM2 hears - "Black guys are all lazy and incompetent."
> 
> I say - "The guy thought I was singling him out and started behaving like a dick so I asked the supervisor to mediate a discussion to resolve the situation."
> IM2  hears - "I ran to tell the boss on him because he wasn't wearing gloves to get the little black Sambo motherfucker fired because black guys are all lazy and incompetent."
> 
> I say - "Even after trying to resolve the issue through discussion, the guy spit on me and that's what got him fired."
> IM2 hears - "I tried to get the jigaboo fired for not wearing gloves and so he spit on me and got fired anyway. Ha ha!"
> 
> From the very beginning (that is, when he wasn't mistakenly attributing other posters' comments to me) he has conflated, assumed, speculated and outright lied to pad his narrative that I was the racist in the story. He fluffed his argument with whatever bullshit he could inject in there to cast doubt on the fact that the guy simply misunderstood my motives and overreacted.
Click to expand...




I think he is not as smart as he likes to think he is, and then he has spent a lifetime being deliberately obtuse to the point that it is sort of a real ability he has, to choose to misunderstand something. Sort of a like a reverse mentalist.

AND, on top of that, he is a racist asshole, who is happy to sometimes just lie in support of his racism and asshole-ness.


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a false equivalence. He spit on you because he thought you were picking in him, not because you were white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thought I was picking on him _because I'm white_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ran and told the boss on him which you claim you are required to do, but I seriously doubt if you did that to your white buddies, which he probably saw daily and that also would have created the anger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lot of speculation and doubt on your part considering that you have already been told all the details of this story.
> 
> Essentially you're assuming that he was right; that I was picking on him and the other black guy and did not treat the white crewmembers the same. So tell me, why would you assume this if not because I'm white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But certainly you will now try telling everybody that the white workers always wore their gloves in order to keep trying to validate your tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More assumption and speculation. No, the white workers didn't always wear their gloves and when they didn't, I corrected them.
> 
> I told you already back then when we first discussed this that it was this guy's first hitch with the company and he had only been on the vessel for a week when all this went down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that story is not equivalent to 243 years of racist laws, public and private policy that have hampered blacks on jobs like  the one you worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a responsibility to enforce company safety policies, I don't give a shit about 243 years of racist laws and policies and that is irrelevant anyway. It was his responsibility to comply with company safety procedures of which he was apprised when he hired on. He was told when he was hired and knew full well that company policy dictated that he wear gloves and safety glasses when performing any task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us ghost, how long had that black guy worked there? How long had you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking these questions? You were told all this back then. The guy had just hired on and had only been on the vessel a week. I had been with the company about fifteen years at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because according to your classic white racist story, he and another black man worked there but of course they were lazy and never could do the job, while all the white workers were exceptional hard working types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an absolute and unequivocal lie and WRONG. I never said they were lazy and couldn't do the job. Neither of them were lazy and they performed their jobs just fine. He just had a momentary lapse in compliance with safety rules and I simply reminded him of that.
> 
> You have been told all this numerous times in the past. Why do you persist in getting everything wrong?
> 
> Also, I've had to ask the company to remove lazy and incompetent crewmembers from the vessel three or four times throughout my career and every one of them was white. As far as levels of competence, work ethic and diligence, the line fell pretty much right down the middle of racial lines. In my experience I never found that one race was generally more competent or more lazy than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this looks like to me is that you didn't want to work with blacks and found a reason to try getting him fired so you saw him without gloves on and ran to your super to report him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, completely wrong. I didn't report to anybody about the gloves. The gloves were not the issue and was not a job-terminating offense anyway. I asked the supervisor to come and mediate a discussion because the guy was being an asshole and was making things tense on the vessel. I made an effort to resolve the situation through discussion and got spit on for my trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not faced racism. Racism would have been a black boss letting him keep the job after he spit on you and getting a raise/promotion while you get fired. That's what we face asshole and until you have faced things like that, don't make false  equivalences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. Who's being the whiny bitch? A black employee is asked to comply with company safety rules that he was well aware of and you bring up "243 years of laws and policies and blah blah blah..." Jesus what a racist windbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A very well written series on on topic points, and wasted on IM2, who is a anti-white racist and will side with the black based on his racism and his being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't figure out if IM2 is deliberately being obtuse or if he really is so addle-brained he can't keep the details straight.
> 
> I say - "I asked him to put on gloves according to established safety rules."
> IM2 hears - "Black guys are all lazy and incompetent."
> 
> I say - "The guy thought I was singling him out and started behaving like a dick so I asked the supervisor to mediate a discussion to resolve the situation."
> IM2  hears - "I ran to tell the boss on him because he wasn't wearing gloves to get the little black Sambo motherfucker fired because black guys are all lazy and incompetent."
> 
> I say - "Even after trying to resolve the issue through discussion, the guy spit on me and that's what got him fired."
> IM2 hears - "I tried to get the jigaboo fired for not wearing gloves and so he spit on me and got fired anyway. Ha ha!"
> 
> From the very beginning (that is, when he wasn't mistakenly attributing other posters' comments to me) he has conflated, assumed, speculated and outright lied to pad his narrative that I was the racist in the story. He fluffed his argument with whatever bullshit he could inject in there to cast doubt on the fact that the guy simply misunderstood my motives and overreacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happens..A guy got fired from where I was working for freaking out like that..in 1989.
> IM2 reminds me of him..was reading "Malcolm X" for 2 weeks; For me it would be 2 afternoons.
> I can still see the black guys on the crew looking at him and shaking their heads.
> We were all in that thing together, except him.
Click to expand...



I saw a security guard get fired like that. Young black guy, watched Black Panther too many times. Got all riled up. He was a crappy security guard anyways, and then when the boss, who was an asshole, was telling him what to do, the young black guy was disrespectful and insubordinate.


BAM! And he is out of there. Take your Black Pride and go home.


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.
Click to expand...



Libs are so stupid. THey attack the very idea of patriotism, and then act shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that we would question their patriotism.


Fucking assholes.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederate lost......deal with it
Click to expand...


In this usage, it would be "Confederacy", dumbass.


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The confederate lost......deal with it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this usage, it would be "Confederacy", dumbass.
Click to expand...


Biff doesn't seem too smart.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Libs are so stupid. THey attack the very idea of patriotism, and then act shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that we would question their patriotism.
> 
> 
> Fucking assholes.
Click to expand...

LOL
And yet another Sad Day for conservatives.. upon learning that it was actually a conservative bitching about conservatives who coined the phrase "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Takes one to know one.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unverifiable anecdote combined with patriotism. Refuge of scoundrels.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We get that you loathe patriotism, traitor Commie boy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Libs are so stupid. THey attack the very idea of patriotism, and then act shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that we would question their patriotism.
> 
> 
> Fucking assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> And yet another Sad Day for conservatives.. upon learning that it was actually a conservative bitching about conservatives who coined the phrase "Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel." Takes one to know one.
Click to expand...



I've never heard Mark Twain called a conservative before. And my point regarding the way you lefties will switch so easily from attacking the very idea of patriotism, to pretending to be shocked that anyone would question your patriotism, 

is valid and still stands.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

rightwinger said:


> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jitss617 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you a question are you saying that there were no slaves that became part of that white family, had an emotional connection, and were treated as family.. are you saying NOT ONE?
> 
> 
> 
> No more so than a pet or favorite horse.
> 
> If they were members of the family, they would not be held in slavery and would be allowed free will
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do these idiots try making slavery nice? We blacks don't need whites to explain what slavery was and the gaslighting done by these racists only piss us off more..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is all part of the Lost Cause propaganda.
> Slavery was not so bad, they were better off than in Africa.......oh, did you know blacks owned slaves too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Slavery was a dying practice. To suggest the civil war was about slavery just an antiquated view from the winning side.
> 
> The civil war was about keeping the Union together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There were 4 million slaves. Cotton was picked by hand until the 1930s.
> Slavery was not going anywhere
> 
> It still took a hundred years before the South was forced to give blacks equal rights
Click to expand...

Yup and it is a FACT that Slavery was the State "right" that the south left over. 9 of the 11 States stated so in their letter leaving the Union.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I've never heard Mark Twain called a conservative before.


Read something, idiot.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Here's what we can reasonably expect conservatives to nominate:


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard Mark Twain called a conservative before.
> 
> 
> 
> Read something, idiot.
Click to expand...



Unrelated out of context quotes ? lol!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard Mark Twain called a conservative before.
> 
> 
> 
> Read something, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated out of context quotes ? lol!
Click to expand...

And again, the idiot demonstrates his profound lack of reading ability!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've never heard Mark Twain called a conservative before.
> 
> 
> 
> Read something, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Unrelated out of context quotes ? lol!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And again, the idiot demonstrates his profound lack of reading ability!
Click to expand...



If you have a point to make about Twain, MAKE IT IN YOUR OWN WORDS, YOU MORON.

Also, 



Libs are so stupid. THey attack the very idea of patriotism, and then act shocked, SHOCKED I tell you, that we would question their patriotism.


Fucking assholes.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> If you have a point to make


Already done. Repeatedly, doofus. You missed it.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Marion Morrison said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL.
> So,  after you run and tell the boss on him, black guy spits on you and gets fired. You continue crying a river and calling him racist. What a man! What a really, really big man!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is a false equivalence. He spit on you because he thought you were picking in him, not because you were white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He thought I was picking on him _because I'm white_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You ran and told the boss on him which you claim you are required to do, but I seriously doubt if you did that to your white buddies, which he probably saw daily and that also would have created the anger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lot of speculation and doubt on your part considering that you have already been told all the details of this story.
> 
> Essentially you're assuming that he was right; that I was picking on him and the other black guy and did not treat the white crewmembers the same. So tell me, why would you assume this if not because I'm white?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But certainly you will now try telling everybody that the white workers always wore their gloves in order to keep trying to validate your tale.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More assumption and speculation. No, the white workers didn't always wear their gloves and when they didn't, I corrected them.
> 
> I told you already back then when we first discussed this that it was this guy's first hitch with the company and he had only been on the vessel for a week when all this went down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But that story is not equivalent to 243 years of racist laws, public and private policy that have hampered blacks on jobs like  the one you worked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I have a responsibility to enforce company safety policies, I don't give a shit about 243 years of racist laws and policies and that is irrelevant anyway. It was his responsibility to comply with company safety procedures of which he was apprised when he hired on. He was told when he was hired and knew full well that company policy dictated that he wear gloves and safety glasses when performing any task.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell us ghost, how long had that black guy worked there? How long had you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why are you asking these questions? You were told all this back then. The guy had just hired on and had only been on the vessel a week. I had been with the company about fifteen years at that point.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because according to your classic white racist story, he and another black man worked there but of course they were lazy and never could do the job, while all the white workers were exceptional hard working types.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is an absolute and unequivocal lie and WRONG. I never said they were lazy and couldn't do the job. Neither of them were lazy and they performed their jobs just fine. He just had a momentary lapse in compliance with safety rules and I simply reminded him of that.
> 
> You have been told all this numerous times in the past. Why do you persist in getting everything wrong?
> 
> Also, I've had to ask the company to remove lazy and incompetent crewmembers from the vessel three or four times throughout my career and every one of them was white. As far as levels of competence, work ethic and diligence, the line fell pretty much right down the middle of racial lines. In my experience I never found that one race was generally more competent or more lazy than the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this looks like to me is that you didn't want to work with blacks and found a reason to try getting him fired so you saw him without gloves on and ran to your super to report him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, completely wrong. I didn't report to anybody about the gloves. The gloves were not the issue and was not a job-terminating offense anyway. I asked the supervisor to come and mediate a discussion because the guy was being an asshole and was making things tense on the vessel. I made an effort to resolve the situation through discussion and got spit on for my trouble.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have not faced racism. Racism would have been a black boss letting him keep the job after he spit on you and getting a raise/promotion while you get fired. That's what we face asshole and until you have faced things like that, don't make false  equivalences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh please. Who's being the whiny bitch? A black employee is asked to comply with company safety rules that he was well aware of and you bring up "243 years of laws and policies and blah blah blah..." Jesus what a racist windbag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A very well written series on on topic points, and wasted on IM2, who is a anti-white racist and will side with the black based on his racism and his being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't figure out if IM2 is deliberately being obtuse or if he really is so addle-brained he can't keep the details straight.
> 
> I say - "I asked him to put on gloves according to established safety rules."
> IM2 hears - "Black guys are all lazy and incompetent."
> 
> I say - "The guy thought I was singling him out and started behaving like a dick so I asked the supervisor to mediate a discussion to resolve the situation."
> IM2  hears - "I ran to tell the boss on him because he wasn't wearing gloves to get the little black Sambo motherfucker fired because black guys are all lazy and incompetent."
> 
> I say - "Even after trying to resolve the issue through discussion, the guy spit on me and that's what got him fired."
> IM2 hears - "I tried to get the jigaboo fired for not wearing gloves and so he spit on me and got fired anyway. Ha ha!"
> 
> From the very beginning (that is, when he wasn't mistakenly attributing other posters' comments to me) he has conflated, assumed, speculated and outright lied to pad his narrative that I was the racist in the story. He fluffed his argument with whatever bullshit he could inject in there to cast doubt on the fact that the guy simply misunderstood my motives and overreacted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It happens..A guy got fired from where I was working for freaking out like that..in 1989.
> IM2 reminds me of him..was reading "Malcolm X" for 2 weeks; For me it would be 2 afternoons.
> I can still see the black guys on the crew looking at him and shaking their heads.
> We were all in that thing together, except him.
Click to expand...


Not once did IM2 acknowledge that maybe the guy overreacted. The possibility that I was not singling the guy out or being racist never occurred to him.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Not once has *Ghost of a Rider* acknowledged that the introduction of unverifiable anecdotes to forward an opposing political stance is of less use than toilet paper and a pathetic waste of everyone's time.. Gee, I (don't) wonder why?


----------



## Marion Morrison

Grumblenuts said:


> Here's what we can reasonably expect conservatives to nominate:




Yeah..Herman Cain should have been that year. He's too old now.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Name a great leader that's black that you would like to see lead the US!

I come up with zip after Herman Cain, I woulda voted for him over any of the other candidates that year.

He would have made a good president.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Not once has *Ghost of a Rider* acknowledged that the introduction of unverifiable anecdotes to forward an opposing political stance is of less use than toilet paper and a pathetic waste of everyone's time.. Gee, I (don't) wonder why?



Let's do a quick synopsis of this string of the conversation, shall we?

Remember, I didn't bring up or tell the story. All I said was that I had experienced black racism and that when I related the story to IM2 in an earlier discussion, he assumed I made it up and he assumed it because I'm white. What's more, I wasn't even talking to you; it was addressed to Biff Poindexter.

You then quoted me out of context (from a post not addressed to you) and responded with: _"To experience black racism one would have to be a minority member in a place where blacks outnumber you, own and control more things, and have treated you as subhuman."
_
I then asked you if you knew the definition of the word "racism" to which you cited only half the definition.

In the same post YOU asked ME: _"what did IM2 do to make you cry like such a victim in public?" _

To which I answered that he had accused me of lying without cause.

To which YOU responded with this assumption: _"I doubt it was that simplistic," 
_
At this point IM2 jumped in with his completely error-filled version of that conversation (Post #543, Page 55), saying I had "narced" on the guy, which I did not and was not how it went down. I was then compelled to correct him.

You and IM2 are solely responsible for the discussion taking the turn that it did. I never wanted or meant to rehash the story. But you idiots with your uninformed assumptions, half-cited definitions and juvenile references to machismo, well, you got what you asked for.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> All I said was that I had experienced black racism and that when I related the story to IM2 in an earlier discussion, he assumed I made it up and he assumed it because I'm white.


Briefer synopsis: More unsolicited, unverifiable anecdote. My unsolicited advice? Stop doing this. Stop whining. Permanently. Make factual claims that your interlocutor(s) can easily verify. Simples. Honest. No bullshit.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I said was that I had experienced black racism and that when I related the story to IM2 in an earlier discussion, he assumed I made it up and he assumed it because I'm white.
> 
> 
> 
> Briefer synopsis: More unsolicited, unverifiable anecdote.
Click to expand...


It's all right here in this discussion in black and white dumbass.



> My unsolicited advice? Stop doing this. Stop whining. Permanently. Make factual claims that your interlocutor(s) can easily verify. Simples. Honest. No bullshit.



My unsolicited advice? If you don't want to hear about something then don't comment on or ask questions about a remark that was not addressed to you in the first place. Fucking moron.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I said was that I had experienced black racism and that when I related the story to IM2 in an earlier discussion, he assumed I made it up and he assumed it because I'm white.
> 
> 
> 
> Briefer synopsis: More unsolicited, unverifiable anecdote. My unsolicited advice? Stop doing this. Stop whining. Permanently. Make factual claims that your interlocutor(s) can easily verify. Simples. Honest. No bullshit.
Click to expand...

There is in fact black racism and it does not have to be from people in a power position read your own damn definition retard.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Testy little losers, aren't they though?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Grumblenuts said:


> Testy little losers, aren't they though?


Keep right on proving you can not read and are as stupid as a rock.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you have a point to make
> 
> 
> 
> Already done. Repeatedly, doofus. You missed it.
Click to expand...



Standard lib tactic. When losing an argument, retreat to short, snark comments, and just play this pretend game, that you are winning the argument, and count on your lib friends to support the delusion.


Meanwhile in the real world, you're defending a position that you already admitted you don't agree with , ie, that blacks cannot be racist.


You are defending this position, because you are deferring to the black guy, because blacks have the Moral Authority on the issue.


Oddly, you don't see any racism, in this dividing people by race and finding one race morally superior to another.


AND, you made a claim about Mark Twain being a conservative, which you can't or won't support, but you will be snarky about being asked about it.


I'm not sure why you are doing this to yourself.


What you should do now, is admit that it was wrong of you to side with IM2, because of his skin color, and that  you don't know why you thought of Twain as a conservative.


Because, after all, you do agree with me, that blacks can be racist. 


It is racist of you to side with him over me, based on skin color.  Stop being racist.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Meanwhile in the real world, you're defending a position that you already admitted you don't agree with , ie, that blacks cannot be racist.


In your dreams? I'm quite sure. But go right ahead. Be my guest. Quote me. Saying exactly that. Else stop whining and kidding yourself like this.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> AND, you made a claim about Mark Twain being a conservative,


No, I didn't. That was all you, honey.


Correll said:


> which you can't or won't support,


I supported everything I said with logic and links. You should really try it some time.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile in the real world, you're defending a position that you already admitted you don't agree with , ie, that blacks cannot be racist.
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams? I'm quite sure. But go right ahead. Be my guest. Quote me. Saying exactly that. Else stop whining and kidding yourself like this.
Click to expand...




Took me several minutes of scrolling to find this, so you better not just blow it off.


Here is you, post number 561.


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



"I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist...."




Here in post 597 explaining why you were kowtowing to the morally superior black man, like the racist white lib you are.


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



"I was speaking hypothetically from a privileged, disinterested, third party perspective. IM2 speaks from the perspective of one who's experienced harmful racism. I don't blame him for showing negligible respect for my opinions on the subject. I know next to nothing by comparison."




Did you forget that? You are now defending a position, that you have admitted that you don't agree with, 

and you have clearly stated that the reason you are deferring to the black man, is because being black makes him an Authority on racism, that needs to be deferred to, by white people. 


That is clearly racist of you.



YOu are judging people and ideas, including yourself and your ideas, not on the merits or character of the idea or person, but based on skin color. 



You agree with me, that blacks can be racist, but you are siding with the black, because of skin color. 


How can you have so little self awareness of your own actions?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Found one good article on the topic, but it ends up just covering the Democrats since there simply are no potential Republicans on the horizon. Money quote, literally,


> Why is being perceived as too liberal an impediment to running for governor, senator or president? For one, that perception probably hinders big-dollar fundraising.


This money driven politics crap has to go. That will only happen due to greatly increased grassroots pressure.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

RetiredGySgt said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I said was that I had experienced black racism and that when I related the story to IM2 in an earlier discussion, he assumed I made it up and he assumed it because I'm white.
> 
> 
> 
> Briefer synopsis: More unsolicited, unverifiable anecdote. My unsolicited advice? Stop doing this. Stop whining. Permanently. Make factual claims that your interlocutor(s) can easily verify. Simples. Honest. No bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is in fact black racism and it does not have to be from people in a power position read your own damn definition retard.
Click to expand...


He deliberately left that part of the definition out. Gee, I wonder why.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile in the real world, you're defending a position that you already admitted you don't agree with , ie, that blacks cannot be racist.
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams? I'm quite sure. But go right ahead. Be my guest. Quote me. Saying exactly that.
Click to expand...

So here is Post 561 (thanks for providing the number):


Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
Click to expand...

So allegedly I've been "defending" the statement "blacks cannot be racist" while somehow disagreeing with that very same statement. In actual fact, your efforts have revealed me clearly stating "it's possible for black people to be racist" without qualification. All your blathering to the contrary has been just that. You have yet to quote me defending a position that I don't agree with.


Correll said:


> "I was speaking hypothetically from a privileged, disinterested, third party perspective. IM2 speaks from the perspective of one who's experienced harmful racism. I don't blame him for showing negligible respect for my opinions on the subject. I know next to nothing by comparison."
> 
> Did you forget that?


Of course not. I can't help seeing race issues mainly from a majority (white)(establishment) perspective while he's both seen and experienced them from a minority perspective as well. Plus I gather, unlike me, he's studied the issue in great depth and professionally lectured on the subject. Yes, I do defer to his clearly superior expertise. That does not preclude us from disagreeing here and there.


Correll said:


> You agree with me, that blacks can be racist, but you are siding with the black, because of skin color.


I'm going to say this more than once:

Fuck you.
Fuck you.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Testy little losers, aren't they though?



That's rich. You offer an unsolicited comment and question to a comment that wasn't addressed to you anyway and then bitch about it because you didn't want to hear my response to your unsolicited comment to my unsolicited comment. You're a special kind of chickenshit, aren't you?


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

depotoo said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, and the Dems then seek to destroy.
Click to expand...

There would probably would have been more, but those democrats.


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

rightwinger said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever happened to the days Republicans had Colin Powell and Condoliza Rice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't properly anti black enough as it turns out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Never heard them spouting “blacks deserve what happens to them” RW hate
Click to expand...

Milder versions of Clayton Bigsby.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> He deliberately left that part of the definition out. Gee, I wonder why.


Not "the definition" sparky. Upon demand, like any normal person, I provided the most commonly used and understood definition. Also the link that provided you another two. That adds up to three. You've provided tears and illogic. Dismissed.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Found one good article on the topic, but it ends up just covering the Democrats since there simply are no potential Republicans on the horizon. Money quote, literally,
> 
> 
> 
> Why is being perceived as too liberal an impediment to running for governor, senator or president? For one, that perception probably hinders big-dollar fundraising.
> 
> 
> 
> This money driven politics crap has to go. That will only happen due to greatly increased grassroots pressure.
Click to expand...



Would you choose a black candidate over a white one that agrees with you more?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile in the real world, you're defending a position that you already admitted you don't agree with , ie, that blacks cannot be racist.
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams? I'm quite sure. But go right ahead. Be my guest. Quote me. Saying exactly that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So here is Post 561 (thanks for providing the number):
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you agree that black people cannot be racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's possible for black people to be racist. Do you agree that it's long been much easier for white people to actually harm blacks with their racism than vice versa?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So allegedly I've been "defending" the statement "blacks cannot be racist" while somehow disagreeing with that very same statement. In actual fact, your efforts have revealed me clearly stating "it's possible for black people to be racist" without qualification. All your blathering to the contrary has been just that. You have yet to quote me defending a position that I don't agree with.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I was speaking hypothetically from a privileged, disinterested, third party perspective. IM2 speaks from the perspective of one who's experienced harmful racism. I don't blame him for showing negligible respect for my opinions on the subject. I know next to nothing by comparison."
> 
> Did you forget that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course not. I can't help seeing race issues mainly from a majority (white)(establishment) perspective while he's both seen and experienced them from a minority perspective as well. Plus I gather, unlike me, he's studied the issue in great depth and professionally lectured on the subject. Yes, I do defer to his clearly superior expertise. That does not preclude us from disagreeing here and there.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You agree with me, that blacks can be racist, but you are siding with the black, because of skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm going to say this more than once:
> 
> Fuck you.
> Fuck you.
Click to expand...





So, you disagree with me that you are defending a position that you don't agree with, because you openly state that black people can be racist.


THEN, you explain why you are deferring to the black guy on this issue, the guy that states that black people cannot be racist, because at least partially because of his skin color, ie his "minority perspective".


Then you attack me personally, for saying that you agree with me but are deferring to the black guy based on skin color.



Dude. Seriously. Don't be a self hating anti-white racist.


You should stop doing that to yourself, get some self respect and thank me for kicking your ass and teaching you something.


How old are you?


----------



## IM2

There was nothing good about slavery. Nothing. There were no good slave owners. Slaves were not treated like family. Slaves had no rights. This was not paid employment with benefits and a retirement package.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> There was nothing good about slavery. Nothing. There were no good slave owners. Slaves were not treated like family. Slaves had no rights. This was not paid employment with benefits and a retirement package.


And yet YOU claim black slave owners were different. That somehow blacks owning slaves selling slaves to slavers is different. Retard.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is racist. Your comment says that blacks are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need white liberals to tell us what to think because we wouldn't know without them. That's pure d racism so.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.
> 
> _White liberals_ believe that.
> 
> So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
Click to expand...

On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No Democrats are whining about statues being removed.
> 
> _They're whining the statues even exist at all_, and tearing them down like 4-year-olds seeing a better sandcastle than theirs.
> 
> How many statues do we have to remove before slavery never happened, huh?
> 
> And you need to tell me what you believe a neo-Nazi is.  Hint:  It's not someone who disagrees with liberals.  Kindly stick to established definitions of words, or shut the fuck up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
> 
> Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.
> 
> _Exactly as they want you to_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more racism by the daveman.  You see faggot, I live black. I don't need anybody white to tell me shit. I've whipped racisms ass my entire life and a number of racists to go with it. So now that I'm old, I damn sure won't be listening to a punk ass homosexual republican trying to tell me how I should see things when I see things quite fine.
Click to expand...

I'm not racist -- but you're unquestionably homophobic.

That's okay.  No one on the left will dare criticize you.  Guaranteed.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ohh I see you have a laundry list of EXCUSES for why black tribes sold slaves. You of course realize that black tribes had been taking slaves for about a 1000 years by then and simply found a more profitable way to use them? That IN FACT some blacks STILL TO THIS DAY ENSLAVE other blacks? What is your excuse for THAT?
> 
> 
> 
> If they were excuses I wouldn't be making them. But what they show is what you don't want to see. Therefore you try dismissing it. Whites had slaves for the same 1000 years.  Still to this day whites enslave other whites. But you see, the deal here is that blacks slaves in Africa somehow could get out of slavery by repaying their debt or serving their time for crimes committed. They could own property and purchase their freedom and some even became kings. I don't think a serf was able to do that. Now would you like to talk about what happened to blacks after slavery ended? Or did blacks create Jim Crow segregation too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL more excuses, just accept the fact you are racist and whites for you are the boggy man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only excuse being made is blacks sold each other into slavery. A black Ugandan doesn't consider himself the same as a black Algerian. This is another reason why I say your story is disingenuous. So why did whites buy the slaves? They didn't have to retardedsgt. WHY DIDN'T THEY ENSLAVE THEIR OWN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but they did.
> 
> Europeans in America owned other Europeans as slaves.
> 
> Africans owned European slaves.
> 
> African slaves still enslave each other.
> 
> It looks like there's a lot of history you're ignorant about.  You can cure that ignorance.
> 
> But I don't think you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should  not fuck with me about this son. I know more than you about this matter. Irish historians tell us that Irish were not slaves in the Americas.
> 
> *Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan takes aim at this notion in a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.”  There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says.*
> 
> https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-irish-were-not-slaves
> Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too
> There were no Irish slaves — here’s how bad history became a racist meme
> All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
> 
> 1.2 million whites were enslaved mostly on the Barbary coast. I'll use your own link now to show how disingenuous your argument is.
> 
> *"Barbary Pirates also known as Barbary Corsairs were involved in the captivity of European slaves and  attacks on European coastal villages. However, just like African slave traders, the most prominent Barbary pirates were indeed European renegades, historian Adrian Tinniswood states."*
> 
> Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, race was not the the only qualification for slavery. Again. I'll use your own link..
> 
> *“Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. Contemporaries were too aware of the sort of people enslaved in North Africa to believe, as many do today, that slavery, whether in Barbary or the Americas, was a matter of race. In the 1600s, no one’s racial background or religion automatically destined him or her for enslavement."
> *
> The transatlantic slave trade had how many slaves? 20-30 million? Whites still enslave each other also.
> 
> Modern Slavery in Europe
> ‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
> ‘Modern Slavery’ Ring in U.K. Ensnared up to 400 Polish People, Authorities Say
> Modern slavery is a reality also in Europe
> 
> Now would you like to go on past slavery ad include the 100 years after slavery until the civil rights act?
> 
> Now try telling me how blacks created Jim Crow.
Click to expand...

I "should not fuck with you"?

I can't tell you how little I'm intimidated.

Look, Skippy, you can't change the past, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.  

Oh, and it wasn't blacks who created Jim Crow.  I never claimed that, so I don't have to support it.  

No, it was Democrats who created Jim Crow.  

Looks like you're getting fucked with, but not by me.  You're being exploited, and you're happy to let it happen.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There was nothing good about slavery. Nothing. There were no good slave owners. Slaves were not treated like family. Slaves had no rights. This was not paid employment with benefits and a retirement package.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet YOU claim black slave owners were different. That somehow blacks owning slaves selling slaves to slavers is different. Retard.
Click to expand...


The record shows that blacks who bought slaves in the US bought enslaved family members. The record shows that blacks were made to capture slaves so they could get guns to protect themselves and that whites instigated strife to cause wars between rival tribes knowing that Africans would sell the prisoners of war. Your argument is disingenuous because you don't want to recognize the facts. But that's to be expected from people like you retardedsgt, because you want to deny all white responsibility for slavery and for the resulting apartheid you are too scared to discuss in the years following


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you pretending to have missed the last 150 years, where the focus of that flag was moved from Secession and slavery to a harmless symbol of regional pride?
> 
> 
> That is silly. You are not that stupid.
> 
> 
> Now, what of the incredible racism of the urban blacks and their rabid support of pro-black racial discrimination policies of the dems?
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I lie to them like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.
Click to expand...

I HAVE explained it.  Repeatedly.

You're not interested.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is racist. Your comment says that blacks are incapable of thinking for ourselves and that we need white liberals to tell us what to think because we wouldn't know without them. That's pure d racism so.
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.
> 
> _White liberals_ believe that.
> 
> So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
Click to expand...


Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The statues were put up 60 years after the war as symbols of white supremacy. That's why they need to come down. Besides the confederate states was a foreign nation that waged war on the United States and lost. To the winner goes the spoils as you racists are so adept at saying, so these confederate symbols must be destroyed.
> 
> 
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
> 
> Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.
> 
> _Exactly as they want you to_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more racism by the daveman.  You see faggot, I live black. I don't need anybody white to tell me shit. I've whipped racisms ass my entire life and a number of racists to go with it. So now that I'm old, I damn sure won't be listening to a punk ass homosexual republican trying to tell me how I should see things when I see things quite fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not racist -- but you're unquestionably homophobic.
> 
> That's okay.  No one on the left will dare criticize you.  Guaranteed.
Click to expand...


Not homophobic, I chose to use that word to offend you, because you have offended me.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they were excuses I wouldn't be making them. But what they show is what you don't want to see. Therefore you try dismissing it. Whites had slaves for the same 1000 years.  Still to this day whites enslave other whites. But you see, the deal here is that blacks slaves in Africa somehow could get out of slavery by repaying their debt or serving their time for crimes committed. They could own property and purchase their freedom and some even became kings. I don't think a serf was able to do that. Now would you like to talk about what happened to blacks after slavery ended? Or did blacks create Jim Crow segregation too?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL more excuses, just accept the fact you are racist and whites for you are the boggy man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only excuse being made is blacks sold each other into slavery. A black Ugandan doesn't consider himself the same as a black Algerian. This is another reason why I say your story is disingenuous. So why did whites buy the slaves? They didn't have to retardedsgt. WHY DIDN'T THEY ENSLAVE THEIR OWN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but they did.
> 
> Europeans in America owned other Europeans as slaves.
> 
> Africans owned European slaves.
> 
> African slaves still enslave each other.
> 
> It looks like there's a lot of history you're ignorant about.  You can cure that ignorance.
> 
> But I don't think you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should  not fuck with me about this son. I know more than you about this matter. Irish historians tell us that Irish were not slaves in the Americas.
> 
> *Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan takes aim at this notion in a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.”  There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says.*
> 
> https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-irish-were-not-slaves
> Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too
> There were no Irish slaves — here’s how bad history became a racist meme
> All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
> 
> 1.2 million whites were enslaved mostly on the Barbary coast. I'll use your own link now to show how disingenuous your argument is.
> 
> *"Barbary Pirates also known as Barbary Corsairs were involved in the captivity of European slaves and  attacks on European coastal villages. However, just like African slave traders, the most prominent Barbary pirates were indeed European renegades, historian Adrian Tinniswood states."*
> 
> Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, race was not the the only qualification for slavery. Again. I'll use your own link..
> 
> *“Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. Contemporaries were too aware of the sort of people enslaved in North Africa to believe, as many do today, that slavery, whether in Barbary or the Americas, was a matter of race. In the 1600s, no one’s racial background or religion automatically destined him or her for enslavement."
> *
> The transatlantic slave trade had how many slaves? 20-30 million? Whites still enslave each other also.
> 
> Modern Slavery in Europe
> ‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
> ‘Modern Slavery’ Ring in U.K. Ensnared up to 400 Polish People, Authorities Say
> Modern slavery is a reality also in Europe
> 
> Now would you like to go on past slavery ad include the 100 years after slavery until the civil rights act?
> 
> Now try telling me how blacks created Jim Crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I "should not fuck with you"?
> 
> I can't tell you how little I'm intimidated.
> 
> Look, Skippy, you can't change the past, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
> 
> Oh, and it wasn't blacks who created Jim Crow.  I never claimed that, so I don't have to support it.
> 
> No, it was Democrats who created Jim Crow.
> 
> Looks like you're getting fucked with, but not by me.  You're being exploited, and you're happy to let it happen.
Click to expand...


No, I'm not being exploited. You are trying to gaslight. Last fall a voting rights measure came to congress and only 1 republican voted for it. ALL THE DEMOCRATS VOTED  FOR IT. So you can stop talking about democrats in the 1800's son.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The symbolism of the flag has never changed. It still represents slavery and oppression.  That was the reason for its birth and it still means that today, even if modern day supporters want to view it differently.
> 
> 
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would I lie to them like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I HAVE explained it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> You're not interested.
Click to expand...


You have not explained a damned thing *xxxxxxx*.


----------



## daveman

rightwinger said:


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





katsteve2012 said:


> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.



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

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


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> Not once has *Ghost of a Rider* acknowledged that the introduction of unverifiable anecdotes to forward an opposing political stance is of less use than toilet paper and a pathetic waste of everyone's time.. Gee, I (don't) wonder why?


But you're kissing IM2's ass and taking his deliberate misreading of the unverifiable anecdotes as gospel.  

It's okay to criticize non-whites when they deserve it.  You won't burst into flames.  Promise.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> All I said was that I had experienced black racism and that when I related the story to IM2 in an earlier discussion, he assumed I made it up and he assumed it because I'm white.
> 
> 
> 
> Briefer synopsis: More unsolicited, unverifiable anecdote. My unsolicited advice? Stop doing this. Stop whining. Permanently. Make factual claims that your interlocutor(s) can easily verify. Simples. Honest. No bullshit.
Click to expand...

I must have missed the bit in the TOS where you have final say over all posts.  Can you point it out for me, please?


----------



## IM2

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I lie to them like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I HAVE explained it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> You're not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not explained a damned thing *xxxxxxx*.
Click to expand...


Funny how we blacks can be called apes and we don't see the x's but saltine now has become a slur.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> Fuck you.
> Fuck you.





Grumblenuts said:


> Testy little losers, aren't they though?


Indeed you are


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> This money driven politics crap has to go. That will only happen due to greatly increased grassroots pressure.


Oh, then you oppose labor unions donating to political parties and campaigns?  Awesome!


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not once has *Ghost of a Rider* acknowledged that the introduction of unverifiable anecdotes to forward an opposing political stance is of less use than toilet paper and a pathetic waste of everyone's time.. Gee, I (don't) wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> But you're kissing IM2's ass and taking his deliberate misreading of the unverifiable anecdotes as gospel.
> 
> It's okay to criticize non-whites when they deserve it.  You won't burst into flames.  Promise.
Click to expand...


LOL!  I am not misreading anything son. Your criticism of me is based on your racism, not facts.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
Click to expand...


What is he supposed to be chastising right-winger for?


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.
> 
> _White liberals_ believe that.
> 
> So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
Click to expand...

I've been repeatedly assured that unverifiable anecdotes are not allowed.

Meanwhile, the left has told you (and I've explained this many times before, and I don't expect you to accept it this time) that blacks aren't good enough or smart enough to succeed on their own without help.  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards, etc.  

Conservatives believe everyone is good enough and smart enough to succeed without help.

But you believe liberals and call conservatives racists.

You been gaslit af.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
> 
> Democrats seek to destroy history all the time.  You know why?  Because it proves their plans and policies are failures.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.
> 
> _Exactly as they want you to_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more racism by the daveman.  You see faggot, I live black. I don't need anybody white to tell me shit. I've whipped racisms ass my entire life and a number of racists to go with it. So now that I'm old, I damn sure won't be listening to a punk ass homosexual republican trying to tell me how I should see things when I see things quite fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not racist -- but you're unquestionably homophobic.
> 
> That's okay.  No one on the left will dare criticize you.  Guaranteed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not homophobic, I chose to use that word to offend you, because you have offended me.
Click to expand...

I've offended you?  With words?

That's weak shit, dood.  _Seriously_ weak.

Protip:  No one can hurt your feelings without your permission.  Why give anonymous internet strangers that power over you?  For example, I have not given you that permission, so there is nothing you can say that can hurt me.  

It's words on a screen.  Damn.  I thought you said you beat up white racists.  I'm finding that hard to believe.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL more excuses, just accept the fact you are racist and whites for you are the boggy man.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only excuse being made is blacks sold each other into slavery. A black Ugandan doesn't consider himself the same as a black Algerian. This is another reason why I say your story is disingenuous. So why did whites buy the slaves? They didn't have to retardedsgt. WHY DIDN'T THEY ENSLAVE THEIR OWN?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, but they did.
> 
> Europeans in America owned other Europeans as slaves.
> 
> Africans owned European slaves.
> 
> African slaves still enslave each other.
> 
> It looks like there's a lot of history you're ignorant about.  You can cure that ignorance.
> 
> But I don't think you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should  not fuck with me about this son. I know more than you about this matter. Irish historians tell us that Irish were not slaves in the Americas.
> 
> *Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan takes aim at this notion in a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.”  There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says.*
> 
> https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-irish-were-not-slaves
> Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too
> There were no Irish slaves — here’s how bad history became a racist meme
> All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
> 
> 1.2 million whites were enslaved mostly on the Barbary coast. I'll use your own link now to show how disingenuous your argument is.
> 
> *"Barbary Pirates also known as Barbary Corsairs were involved in the captivity of European slaves and  attacks on European coastal villages. However, just like African slave traders, the most prominent Barbary pirates were indeed European renegades, historian Adrian Tinniswood states."*
> 
> Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, race was not the the only qualification for slavery. Again. I'll use your own link..
> 
> *“Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. Contemporaries were too aware of the sort of people enslaved in North Africa to believe, as many do today, that slavery, whether in Barbary or the Americas, was a matter of race. In the 1600s, no one’s racial background or religion automatically destined him or her for enslavement."
> *
> The transatlantic slave trade had how many slaves? 20-30 million? Whites still enslave each other also.
> 
> Modern Slavery in Europe
> ‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
> ‘Modern Slavery’ Ring in U.K. Ensnared up to 400 Polish People, Authorities Say
> Modern slavery is a reality also in Europe
> 
> Now would you like to go on past slavery ad include the 100 years after slavery until the civil rights act?
> 
> Now try telling me how blacks created Jim Crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I "should not fuck with you"?
> 
> I can't tell you how little I'm intimidated.
> 
> Look, Skippy, you can't change the past, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
> 
> Oh, and it wasn't blacks who created Jim Crow.  I never claimed that, so I don't have to support it.
> 
> No, it was Democrats who created Jim Crow.
> 
> Looks like you're getting fucked with, but not by me.  You're being exploited, and you're happy to let it happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being exploited. You are trying to gaslight. Last fall a voting rights measure came to congress and only 1 republican voted for it. ALL THE DEMOCRATS VOTED  FOR IT. So you can stop talking about democrats in the 1800's son.
Click to expand...

And yet, oddly, _I'm_ held responsible for slavery.

GTFO.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> These damn white supremacists!
> 
> Now, remember, it's your duty and obligation as a white liberal to tell these black people their views are wrong, and tell them what they have to believe.
> 
> It's the White Liberal's Burden.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I lie to them like that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I HAVE explained it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> You're not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not explained a damned thing *xxxxxxx*.
Click to expand...

"You're not interested."

Yup.  I called it.  You're so predictable.  

But I am curious what the Xed out word was.  LOL!


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I lie to them like that?
> 
> 
> 
> Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I HAVE explained it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> You're not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not explained a damned thing *xxxxxxx*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how we blacks can be called apes and we don't see the x's but saltine now has become a slur.
Click to expand...

Ahhh.  "Saltine".  I was hoping it would be something at least a _little_ amusing.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not once has *Ghost of a Rider* acknowledged that the introduction of unverifiable anecdotes to forward an opposing political stance is of less use than toilet paper and a pathetic waste of everyone's time.. Gee, I (don't) wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> But you're kissing IM2's ass and taking his deliberate misreading of the unverifiable anecdotes as gospel.
> 
> It's okay to criticize non-whites when they deserve it.  You won't burst into flames.  Promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I am not misreading anything son. Your criticism of me is based on your racism, not facts.
Click to expand...

Oh, horseshit.  You got Ghost's anecdote completely wrong...because you're a racist.

And you call me a racist because I'm not kissing your ass.

How's that working out for you?  Have I stopped fucking with you yet?  Sure doesn't look like, does it?


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is he supposed to be chastising right-winger for?
Click to expand...

I'm tired of explaining extremely simple concepts to you.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been repeatedly assured that unverifiable anecdotes are not allowed.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has told you (and I've explained this many times before, and I don't expect you to accept it this time) that blacks aren't good enough or smart enough to succeed on their own without help.  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards, etc.
> 
> Conservatives believe everyone is good enough and smart enough to succeed without help.
> 
> But you believe liberals and call conservatives racists.
> 
> You been gaslit af.
Click to expand...


The left has not said that. The right has.

Your flimsy argument fails in the fact that whites had been helped by government and excluded everyone else for 189 years before affirmative action. Therefore whites got affirmative action for 189 years. But you don't look at that as whites not being able to succeed on your own without help. To you that's achieving because of hard work, effort and merit. So again you are trying to gaslight with this dumb shit. Conservatives want to end affirmative action and return to white preferential treatment. That's one reason why I call conservatives racists.

You are out of your league here ritz, I would suggest you go back and start looking at the history of America so you learn how whites have been given everything they have by the government and then ask why you had to exclude everybody who was not white. Then ask yourself this question:

*WOULD WHITES HAVE WHAT THEY DO TODAY IF THEY HAD ALLOWED EVERYBODY ELSE TO COMPETE FOR AS LONG AS THEY HAVE?*


----------



## Grumblenuts

daveman said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> This money driven politics crap has to go. That will only happen due to greatly increased grassroots pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, then you oppose labor unions donating to political parties and campaigns?  Awesome!
Click to expand...

I do. Government alone should provide for elections. All candidates treated the same.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not once has *Ghost of a Rider* acknowledged that the introduction of unverifiable anecdotes to forward an opposing political stance is of less use than toilet paper and a pathetic waste of everyone's time.. Gee, I (don't) wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> But you're kissing IM2's ass and taking his deliberate misreading of the unverifiable anecdotes as gospel.
> 
> It's okay to criticize non-whites when they deserve it.  You won't burst into flames.  Promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I am not misreading anything son. Your criticism of me is based on your racism, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, horseshit.  You got Ghost's anecdote completely wrong...because you're a racist.
> 
> And you call me a racist because I'm not kissing your ass.
> 
> How's that working out for you?  Have I stopped fucking with you yet?  Sure doesn't look like, does it?
Click to expand...


No, I am right. You not kissing my ass is of no concern because I don't need my ass kissed. I have the facts at my disposal, you don't. You can fuck with me for as long as you want. I welcome it.  Because I will pound you into the ground.


----------



## Grumblenuts

If this keeps up much longer Popgun's going to shoot his eye out.. 
Most definitely..


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well son being that I am black and lived during the last movement of blacks away from the republican party, a process that began in the early 1900's thanks to the lily white republican movement, you trying to tell me about history is like a man trying to explain to a pregnant woman what morning sickness or labor pains feels like.
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.
> 
> _Exactly as they want you to_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And more racism by the daveman.  You see faggot, I live black. I don't need anybody white to tell me shit. I've whipped racisms ass my entire life and a number of racists to go with it. So now that I'm old, I damn sure won't be listening to a punk ass homosexual republican trying to tell me how I should see things when I see things quite fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not racist -- but you're unquestionably homophobic.
> 
> That's okay.  No one on the left will dare criticize you.  Guaranteed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not homophobic, I chose to use that word to offend you, because you have offended me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've offended you?  With words?
> 
> That's weak shit, dood.  _Seriously_ weak.
> 
> Protip:  No one can hurt your feelings without your permission.  Why give anonymous internet strangers that power over you?  For example, I have not given you that permission, so there is nothing you can say that can hurt me.
> 
> It's words on a screen.  Damn.  I thought you said you beat up white racists.  I'm finding that hard to believe.
Click to expand...


Apparently you were offended or you would not have made the comments you did.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only excuse being made is blacks sold each other into slavery. A black Ugandan doesn't consider himself the same as a black Algerian. This is another reason why I say your story is disingenuous. So why did whites buy the slaves? They didn't have to retardedsgt. WHY DIDN'T THEY ENSLAVE THEIR OWN?
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but they did.
> 
> Europeans in America owned other Europeans as slaves.
> 
> Africans owned European slaves.
> 
> African slaves still enslave each other.
> 
> It looks like there's a lot of history you're ignorant about.  You can cure that ignorance.
> 
> But I don't think you want to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You really should  not fuck with me about this son. I know more than you about this matter. Irish historians tell us that Irish were not slaves in the Americas.
> 
> *Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan takes aim at this notion in a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.”  There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says.*
> 
> https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-irish-were-not-slaves
> Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too
> There were no Irish slaves — here’s how bad history became a racist meme
> All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
> 
> 1.2 million whites were enslaved mostly on the Barbary coast. I'll use your own link now to show how disingenuous your argument is.
> 
> *"Barbary Pirates also known as Barbary Corsairs were involved in the captivity of European slaves and  attacks on European coastal villages. However, just like African slave traders, the most prominent Barbary pirates were indeed European renegades, historian Adrian Tinniswood states."*
> 
> Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, race was not the the only qualification for slavery. Again. I'll use your own link..
> 
> *“Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. Contemporaries were too aware of the sort of people enslaved in North Africa to believe, as many do today, that slavery, whether in Barbary or the Americas, was a matter of race. In the 1600s, no one’s racial background or religion automatically destined him or her for enslavement."
> *
> The transatlantic slave trade had how many slaves? 20-30 million? Whites still enslave each other also.
> 
> Modern Slavery in Europe
> ‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
> ‘Modern Slavery’ Ring in U.K. Ensnared up to 400 Polish People, Authorities Say
> Modern slavery is a reality also in Europe
> 
> Now would you like to go on past slavery ad include the 100 years after slavery until the civil rights act?
> 
> Now try telling me how blacks created Jim Crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I "should not fuck with you"?
> 
> I can't tell you how little I'm intimidated.
> 
> Look, Skippy, you can't change the past, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
> 
> Oh, and it wasn't blacks who created Jim Crow.  I never claimed that, so I don't have to support it.
> 
> No, it was Democrats who created Jim Crow.
> 
> Looks like you're getting fucked with, but not by me.  You're being exploited, and you're happy to let it happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being exploited. You are trying to gaslight. Last fall a voting rights measure came to congress and only 1 republican voted for it. ALL THE DEMOCRATS VOTED  FOR IT. So you can stop talking about democrats in the 1800's son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, oddly, _I'm_ held responsible for slavery.
> 
> GTFO.
Click to expand...


It's sad just how dumb some white people are. For the longest, I have challenged whites like you to talk about the years after slavery. But you stay stuck on slavery so you can try that weak ass excuse of how you're being blamed for something you did not participate in, while the fact is that you are here today based on programs and policies after slavery that denied blacks rights and opportunity. That's what you are being held to account for.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been repeatedly assured that unverifiable anecdotes are not allowed.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has told you (and I've explained this many times before, and I don't expect you to accept it this time) that blacks aren't good enough or smart enough to succeed on their own without help.  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards, etc.
> 
> Conservatives believe everyone is good enough and smart enough to succeed without help.
> 
> But you believe liberals and call conservatives racists.
> 
> You been gaslit af.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left has not said that. The right has.
Click to expand...

Really?  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.

Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- _and you kiss their ass_.  

No self-respect.  Pathetic.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> This money driven politics crap has to go. That will only happen due to greatly increased grassroots pressure.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, then you oppose labor unions donating to political parties and campaigns?  Awesome!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do. Government alone should provide for elections. All candidates treated the same.
Click to expand...

Wow.  I'm impressed.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I lie to them like that?
> 
> 
> 
> Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I HAVE explained it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> You're not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not explained a damned thing *xxxxxxx*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You're not interested."
> 
> Yup.  I called it.  You're so predictable.
> 
> But I am curious what the Xed out word was.  LOL!
Click to expand...


I am not interested in what? Reading you repeat some right wing imaginary bullshit?


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not once has *Ghost of a Rider* acknowledged that the introduction of unverifiable anecdotes to forward an opposing political stance is of less use than toilet paper and a pathetic waste of everyone's time.. Gee, I (don't) wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> But you're kissing IM2's ass and taking his deliberate misreading of the unverifiable anecdotes as gospel.
> 
> It's okay to criticize non-whites when they deserve it.  You won't burst into flames.  Promise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL!  I am not misreading anything son. Your criticism of me is based on your racism, not facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, horseshit.  You got Ghost's anecdote completely wrong...because you're a racist.
> 
> And you call me a racist because I'm not kissing your ass.
> 
> How's that working out for you?  Have I stopped fucking with you yet?  Sure doesn't look like, does it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I am right. You not kissing my ass is of no concern because I don't need my ass kissed. I have the facts at my disposal, you don't. You can fuck with me for as long as you want. I welcome it.  Because I will pound you into the ground.
Click to expand...

Horseshit.  _You're afraid of words_.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> If this keeps up much longer Popgun's going to shoot his eye out..
> Most definitely..


Dood, I'm pretty sure IM isn't going to put out for you.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Look, I get it.  You like the taste of Democrat horseshit.  They say you're a victim, and you desperately want to feel like a victim, so you eat their shit.
> 
> _Exactly as they want you to_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And more racism by the daveman.  You see faggot, I live black. I don't need anybody white to tell me shit. I've whipped racisms ass my entire life and a number of racists to go with it. So now that I'm old, I damn sure won't be listening to a punk ass homosexual republican trying to tell me how I should see things when I see things quite fine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not racist -- but you're unquestionably homophobic.
> 
> That's okay.  No one on the left will dare criticize you.  Guaranteed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not homophobic, I chose to use that word to offend you, because you have offended me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've offended you?  With words?
> 
> That's weak shit, dood.  _Seriously_ weak.
> 
> Protip:  No one can hurt your feelings without your permission.  Why give anonymous internet strangers that power over you?  For example, I have not given you that permission, so there is nothing you can say that can hurt me.
> 
> It's words on a screen.  Damn.  I thought you said you beat up white racists.  I'm finding that hard to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you were offended or you would not have made the comments you did.
Click to expand...

You _suck_ at logic.  Stop trying it.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been repeatedly assured that unverifiable anecdotes are not allowed.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has told you (and I've explained this many times before, and I don't expect you to accept it this time) that blacks aren't good enough or smart enough to succeed on their own without help.  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards, etc.
> 
> Conservatives believe everyone is good enough and smart enough to succeed without help.
> 
> But you believe liberals and call conservatives racists.
> 
> You been gaslit af.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left has not said that. The right has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.
> 
> Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- _and you kiss their ass_.
> 
> No self-respect.  Pathetic.
Click to expand...


Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, but they did.
> 
> Europeans in America owned other Europeans as slaves.
> 
> Africans owned European slaves.
> 
> African slaves still enslave each other.
> 
> It looks like there's a lot of history you're ignorant about.  You can cure that ignorance.
> 
> But I don't think you want to.
> 
> 
> 
> You really should  not fuck with me about this son. I know more than you about this matter. Irish historians tell us that Irish were not slaves in the Americas.
> 
> *Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan takes aim at this notion in a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.”  There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says.*
> 
> https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-irish-were-not-slaves
> Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too
> There were no Irish slaves — here’s how bad history became a racist meme
> All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
> 
> 1.2 million whites were enslaved mostly on the Barbary coast. I'll use your own link now to show how disingenuous your argument is.
> 
> *"Barbary Pirates also known as Barbary Corsairs were involved in the captivity of European slaves and  attacks on European coastal villages. However, just like African slave traders, the most prominent Barbary pirates were indeed European renegades, historian Adrian Tinniswood states."*
> 
> Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, race was not the the only qualification for slavery. Again. I'll use your own link..
> 
> *“Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. Contemporaries were too aware of the sort of people enslaved in North Africa to believe, as many do today, that slavery, whether in Barbary or the Americas, was a matter of race. In the 1600s, no one’s racial background or religion automatically destined him or her for enslavement."
> *
> The transatlantic slave trade had how many slaves? 20-30 million? Whites still enslave each other also.
> 
> Modern Slavery in Europe
> ‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
> ‘Modern Slavery’ Ring in U.K. Ensnared up to 400 Polish People, Authorities Say
> Modern slavery is a reality also in Europe
> 
> Now would you like to go on past slavery ad include the 100 years after slavery until the civil rights act?
> 
> Now try telling me how blacks created Jim Crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I "should not fuck with you"?
> 
> I can't tell you how little I'm intimidated.
> 
> Look, Skippy, you can't change the past, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
> 
> Oh, and it wasn't blacks who created Jim Crow.  I never claimed that, so I don't have to support it.
> 
> No, it was Democrats who created Jim Crow.
> 
> Looks like you're getting fucked with, but not by me.  You're being exploited, and you're happy to let it happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being exploited. You are trying to gaslight. Last fall a voting rights measure came to congress and only 1 republican voted for it. ALL THE DEMOCRATS VOTED  FOR IT. So you can stop talking about democrats in the 1800's son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, oddly, _I'm_ held responsible for slavery.
> 
> GTFO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad just how dumb some white people are. For the longest, I have challenged whites like you to talk about the years after slavery. But you stay stuck on slavery so you can try that weak ass excuse of how you're being blamed for something you did not participate in, while the fact is that you are here today based on programs and policies after slavery that denied blacks rights and opportunity. That's what you are being held to account for.
Click to expand...

But the thing is, I don't support those programs and policies.

Because I am not a Democrat.

You're angry at the wrong people.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Beats me.  White liberals have been lying to blacks for decades, though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I HAVE explained it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> You're not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not explained a damned thing *xxxxxxx*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You're not interested."
> 
> Yup.  I called it.  You're so predictable.
> 
> But I am curious what the Xed out word was.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not interested in what? Reading you repeat some right wing imaginary bullshit?
Click to expand...

Can you stop being so damn boring?


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> And more racism by the daveman.  You see faggot, I live black. I don't need anybody white to tell me shit. I've whipped racisms ass my entire life and a number of racists to go with it. So now that I'm old, I damn sure won't be listening to a punk ass homosexual republican trying to tell me how I should see things when I see things quite fine.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not racist -- but you're unquestionably homophobic.
> 
> That's okay.  No one on the left will dare criticize you.  Guaranteed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not homophobic, I chose to use that word to offend you, because you have offended me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've offended you?  With words?
> 
> That's weak shit, dood.  _Seriously_ weak.
> 
> Protip:  No one can hurt your feelings without your permission.  Why give anonymous internet strangers that power over you?  For example, I have not given you that permission, so there is nothing you can say that can hurt me.
> 
> It's words on a screen.  Damn.  I thought you said you beat up white racists.  I'm finding that hard to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you were offended or you would not have made the comments you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You _suck_ at logic.  Stop trying it.
Click to expand...


If what you call yourself posting is logic.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> He deliberately left that part of the definition out. Gee, I wonder why.
> 
> 
> 
> Not "the definition" sparky.
Click to expand...


I said "that _part_ of the definition".



> Upon demand, like any normal person, I provided the most commonly used and understood definition.



No, you provided the definition you wanted to provide and it wasn't the only definition in any case. Even if you're right that it's most commonly used, it doesn't negate the fact of the other meanings. Therefore, going by the ancillary meanings of the word, if a black man assumes I'm singling him out, because he's black and I'm white, simply for asking him to put gloves on, refuses to sit down and discuss the matter and then spits on me, I'm calling the motherfucker a piece of shit racist.

Another thing, Dictionary.com is for lay people. It's like the New International Version of dictionaries. The part of the definition that says _"...has the right to dominate others..." _is not in any other dictionary. I always use Merriam-Webster's because they've been in the dictionary business a lot longer.

I'm having a hard time understanding your motive here. On the one hand you allowed that black racism is possible (IM2 even jumped in to disagree with you) and on the other hand you try to tell me I couldn't have experienced black racism because I somehow had the power to oppress this guy.



> Also the link that provided you another two. That adds up to three. You've provided tears and illogic. Dismissed.



Why didn't you just show the whole definition? All you did was copy and paste. How hard could it have been to copy and paste two additional sentences?


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've been repeatedly assured that unverifiable anecdotes are not allowed.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has told you (and I've explained this many times before, and I don't expect you to accept it this time) that blacks aren't good enough or smart enough to succeed on their own without help.  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards, etc.
> 
> Conservatives believe everyone is good enough and smart enough to succeed without help.
> 
> But you believe liberals and call conservatives racists.
> 
> You been gaslit af.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left has not said that. The right has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.
> 
> Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- _and you kiss their ass_.
> 
> No self-respect.  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.
Click to expand...

Yawn.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really should  not fuck with me about this son. I know more than you about this matter. Irish historians tell us that Irish were not slaves in the Americas.
> 
> *Limerick-based research librarian and historian Liam Hogan takes aim at this notion in a series of papers debunking what he calls “the Irish slaves myth.”  There were no Irish slaves in the Americas, Hogan says.*
> 
> https://psmag.com/social-justice/the-irish-were-not-slaves
> Debunking a Myth: The Irish Were Not Slaves, Too
> There were no Irish slaves — here’s how bad history became a racist meme
> All of my work on the “Irish slaves” meme (2015–’19)
> 
> 1.2 million whites were enslaved mostly on the Barbary coast. I'll use your own link now to show how disingenuous your argument is.
> 
> *"Barbary Pirates also known as Barbary Corsairs were involved in the captivity of European slaves and  attacks on European coastal villages. However, just like African slave traders, the most prominent Barbary pirates were indeed European renegades, historian Adrian Tinniswood states."*
> 
> Unlike the transatlantic slave trade, race was not the the only qualification for slavery. Again. I'll use your own link..
> 
> *“Slaves in Barbary could be black, brown or white, Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Jewish or Muslim. Contemporaries were too aware of the sort of people enslaved in North Africa to believe, as many do today, that slavery, whether in Barbary or the Americas, was a matter of race. In the 1600s, no one’s racial background or religion automatically destined him or her for enslavement."
> *
> The transatlantic slave trade had how many slaves? 20-30 million? Whites still enslave each other also.
> 
> Modern Slavery in Europe
> ‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
> ‘Modern Slavery’ Ring in U.K. Ensnared up to 400 Polish People, Authorities Say
> Modern slavery is a reality also in Europe
> 
> Now would you like to go on past slavery ad include the 100 years after slavery until the civil rights act?
> 
> Now try telling me how blacks created Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> 
> I "should not fuck with you"?
> 
> I can't tell you how little I'm intimidated.
> 
> Look, Skippy, you can't change the past, no matter how much you pout and stamp your feet.
> 
> Oh, and it wasn't blacks who created Jim Crow.  I never claimed that, so I don't have to support it.
> 
> No, it was Democrats who created Jim Crow.
> 
> Looks like you're getting fucked with, but not by me.  You're being exploited, and you're happy to let it happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm not being exploited. You are trying to gaslight. Last fall a voting rights measure came to congress and only 1 republican voted for it. ALL THE DEMOCRATS VOTED  FOR IT. So you can stop talking about democrats in the 1800's son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet, oddly, _I'm_ held responsible for slavery.
> 
> GTFO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's sad just how dumb some white people are. For the longest, I have challenged whites like you to talk about the years after slavery. But you stay stuck on slavery so you can try that weak ass excuse of how you're being blamed for something you did not participate in, while the fact is that you are here today based on programs and policies after slavery that denied blacks rights and opportunity. That's what you are being held to account for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But the thing is, I don't support those programs and policies.
> 
> Because I am not a Democrat.
> 
> You're angry at the wrong people.
Click to expand...


You benefitted from them. So you do support them.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not racist -- but you're unquestionably homophobic.
> 
> That's okay.  No one on the left will dare criticize you.  Guaranteed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not homophobic, I chose to use that word to offend you, because you have offended me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've offended you?  With words?
> 
> That's weak shit, dood.  _Seriously_ weak.
> 
> Protip:  No one can hurt your feelings without your permission.  Why give anonymous internet strangers that power over you?  For example, I have not given you that permission, so there is nothing you can say that can hurt me.
> 
> It's words on a screen.  Damn.  I thought you said you beat up white racists.  I'm finding that hard to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you were offended or you would not have made the comments you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You _suck_ at logic.  Stop trying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you call yourself posting is logic.
Click to expand...

I'm done with this.  You can pretend you ran off the scary white racist now.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
> 
> 
> 
> I've been repeatedly assured that unverifiable anecdotes are not allowed.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has told you (and I've explained this many times before, and I don't expect you to accept it this time) that blacks aren't good enough or smart enough to succeed on their own without help.  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards, etc.
> 
> Conservatives believe everyone is good enough and smart enough to succeed without help.
> 
> But you believe liberals and call conservatives racists.
> 
> You been gaslit af.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The left has not said that. The right has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.
> 
> Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- _and you kiss their ass_.
> 
> No self-respect.  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
Click to expand...


I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not homophobic, I chose to use that word to offend you, because you have offended me.
> 
> 
> 
> I've offended you?  With words?
> 
> That's weak shit, dood.  _Seriously_ weak.
> 
> Protip:  No one can hurt your feelings without your permission.  Why give anonymous internet strangers that power over you?  For example, I have not given you that permission, so there is nothing you can say that can hurt me.
> 
> It's words on a screen.  Damn.  I thought you said you beat up white racists.  I'm finding that hard to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you were offended or you would not have made the comments you did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You _suck_ at logic.  Stop trying it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what you call yourself posting is logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm done with this.  You can pretend you ran off the scary white racist now.
Click to expand...


I don't have to pretend. You have run.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please explain to me what white liberals are lying to me about. Because the only people trying to tell me my views are wrong in here are white conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> I HAVE explained it.  Repeatedly.
> 
> You're not interested.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have not explained a damned thing *xxxxxxx*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "You're not interested."
> 
> Yup.  I called it.  You're so predictable.
> 
> But I am curious what the Xed out word was.  LOL!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not interested in what? Reading you repeat some right wing imaginary bullshit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you stop being so damn boring?
Click to expand...


Look at the scared one.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to pay better attention.
> 
> I don't say I believe blacks need white liberals to tell you what to think.
> 
> _White liberals_ believe that.
> 
> So when you start off with a lie, everything that follows can be discarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
Click to expand...

LOL blacks from his own group killed Malcolm X.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> White liberals don't believe that. Racist white conservatives do. You are one of them. And you prove what I just said to be true
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL blacks from his own group killed Malcolm X.
Click to expand...


Another lie. Malcolm left the NOI at the time of his killing. The FBI paid for the hit. But let's not allow facts stand in the way of the retarded sgt's denial of white racism. Funny how you mention X, but the other events you don't want to deal with.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Why didn't you just show the whole definition? All you did was copy and paste. How hard could it have been to copy and paste two additional sentences?


Here, Mr. Merriam-Webster.. Read!
See yet? A definition equals one ("whole") _*meaning*_ of a term. When 3 ("whole") definitions are provided for a term I tend to pick the first. Why? Already answered, plus why risk confusing you even more than you're determined to be already.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Here's what Google provides:


> rac·ism
> /ˈrāˌsizəm/
> 
> _noun_
> noun: *racism*
> 
> prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race *based on the belief that one's own race is superior.*
> "a program to combat racism"
> 
> the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, *especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.*
> "theories of racism"


Mirriam-Webster:


> *Definition of racism*
> 
> 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities *and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race*


Sorry,


> if a black man assumes I'm singling him out, because he's black and I'm white, simply for asking him to put gloves on


..does not appear.


----------



## IM2

Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why didn't you just show the whole definition? All you did was copy and paste. How hard could it have been to copy and paste two additional sentences?
> 
> 
> 
> Here, Mr. Merriam-Webster.. Read!
> See yet? A definition equals one ("whole") _*meaning*_ of a term. When 3 ("whole") definitions are provided for a term I tend to pick the first. Why? Already answered, plus why risk confusing you even more than you're determined to be already.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter if you pick the first definition you idiot, the other definitions still apply. And even if what you say is true, then _"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" _(Dictionary.com), and _"Racial prejudice or discrimination"_ (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not? If they're not then what the fuck are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition? 

Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is _also_ racism? Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary? Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you believe a lot of horseshit.
> 
> Call me racist all you want without any factual evidence to back it up.  It changes nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I showed you the proof. Gaslighting doesn't work on me son.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On the contrary.  The left's been gaslighting you since you were born.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Explain how the left has been gaslighting me since I was born. I was born in 1961. The left didn't stage the BirminGham church bombing, the killing of Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Dr. King, Bloody Sunday, The dogs in Birmingham, Goldwaters speech in 1964, Amadou Diallo, Johnny Gammage, Abner Louima,  the racism I have personally face or Sean Bell. I can keep going.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL blacks from his own group killed Malcolm X.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another lie. Malcolm left the NOI at the time of his killing. The FBI paid for the hit. But let's not allow facts stand in the way of the retarded sgt's denial of white racism. Funny how you mention X, but the other events you don't want to deal with.
Click to expand...

LOL the FBI did no such thing if they had we would know it because by now it would be released. The others were killed by either racist assholes or delusional retards. Funny how when a black man goes around murdering whites we never hear how it was racism but as soon as some white man murders a black it is all our faults and we are all racist. Blacks are individuals and when one does something you never blame the group but one white guy represents all white to you every single time. That is why I call you a racist. Because you see skin color in all things you make excuses for blacks while blaming all whites for the acts of one.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.



You really need to pay more attention. I just told Grumblefish today that I have had white coworkers removed from the vessel. In fact, every one of them was white.

And, for the thousandth time - pay attention because this will be on the test - I DID NOT TURN HIM IN FOR NOT WEARING THE GLOVES. I didn't turn him in at all. He was being difficult and acting like an asshole because he thought I was picking on him when I spoke to him about the gloves. So I asked the supervisor to sit down with the both of us to resolve the situation and try to convince him that I was not picking on him. 

Why do you insist on getting this wrong every fucking time even after having told you what happened a hundred times?


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to pay more attention. I just told Grumblefish today that I have had white coworkers removed from the vessel. In fact, every one of them was white.
> 
> And, for the thousandth time - pay attention because this will be on the test - I DID NOT TURN HIM IN FOR NOT WEARING THE GLOVES. I didn't turn him in at all. He was being difficult and acting like an asshole because he thought I was picking on him when I spoke to him about the gloves. So I asked the supervisor to sit down with the both of us to resolve the situation and try to convince him that I was not picking on him.
> 
> Why do you insist on getting this wrong every fucking time even after having told you what happened a hundred times?
Click to expand...

Because he only sees you are white, he is racist everything a white guy does is AGAINST a black guy to him. Did you see how he excused black slavers how he made excuses for blacks owning slaves and made excuses for why blacks sold blacks to white slavers? He even defended current day slavery among blacks because golly gee they let you buy back your loved one.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> even if what you say is true, then _"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" _(Dictionary.com), and _"Racial prejudice or discrimination"_ (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not?


No! There are multiple definitions. There  is no "the whole definition" unless only one is provided. The first definition provided is intended to be the most common usage or understanding of the term. That is important to those who wish to best understand what others are trying to say to them.


Ghost of a Rider said:


> If they're not then what the fuck are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?


Because it's a secondary meaning or usage of the term.


Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is _also_ racism?


Some significant amount of people have been using the term that way, thus it appears as a secondary definition.


Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary?


I understand that you use the term that way. I don't. To make it that simplistic is to render it superfluous imo. IM2 speaks for himself as should you.


Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?


Sounds like you projecting you onto me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> even if what you say is true, then _"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" _(Dictionary.com), and _"Racial prejudice or discrimination"_ (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not?
> 
> 
> 
> No! There are multiple definitions. There  is no "the whole definition" unless only one is provided. The first definition provided is intended to be the most common usage or understanding of the term. That is important to those who wish to best understand what others are trying to say to them.
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're not then what the fuck are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a secondary meaning or usage of the term.
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is _also_ racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some significant amount of people have been using the term that way, thus it appears as a secondary definition.
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that you use the term that way. I don't. To make it that simplistic is to render it superfluous imo. IM2 speaks for himself as should you.
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you projecting you onto me.
Click to expand...

IM2 is racist because he believes whites as a group are all racist or accept racism. If a white guy kills a black person then to IM2 most whites did it. He may make exceptions for some liberals but only grudgingly. If you disagree with IM2 you are either racist or if black an Uncle Tom. That is racism. He blames all whites for racism even liberals. He makes excuses for bad black behavior and none for white behavior, we just had a conversation about slavery he claims all whites are guilty of slavery and that blacks practicing slavery or selling blacks into slavery are FORCED to do it by whites. Again racism.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I will accept IM2's opinions from their source. Some of your apoplectic attempts to summarize his views are somewhat entertaining to read. I'll grant you that much.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've been repeatedly assured that unverifiable anecdotes are not allowed.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left has told you (and I've explained this many times before, and I don't expect you to accept it this time) that blacks aren't good enough or smart enough to succeed on their own without help.  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards, etc.
> 
> Conservatives believe everyone is good enough and smart enough to succeed without help.
> 
> But you believe liberals and call conservatives racists.
> 
> You been gaslit af.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left has not said that. The right has.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.
> 
> Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- _and you kiss their ass_.
> 
> No self-respect.  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.
Click to expand...

Threats from a pussy like you who's scared of words are less than credible.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The left has not said that. The right has.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.
> 
> Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- _and you kiss their ass_.
> 
> No self-respect.  Pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Threats from a pussy like you who's scared of words are less than credible.
Click to expand...


Being offended is far different from being scared son. But since I am such a pussy, I guess that means you will engage in a discussion of white racism after slavery.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did not "select" any circle of friends. I have the same circle of friends for the most part that I had growing up.
> 
> Obviously at my age, a few have died.
> 
> I brought up education only because there happen to be some very bright people that I are friends from all races, and truthfully none of them, back them saw the humor in that show.
> 
> Probably because none of them were raised in or lived in  the geographical region that waved the Confederate flag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.
> 
> 
> None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.
> 
> It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.
> 
> 
> It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.
> 
> 
> I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.
> 
> It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.
> 
> 12 Types of Target Audience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.
> 
> 
> You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.
> 
> 
> It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.
> 
> 
> That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.
> 
> 
> This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.
> 
> 
> "And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"
> 
> 
> "Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> "I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.
> 
> Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.
> 
> Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.
> 
> Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.
> 
> Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.
> 
> James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.
> 
> 
> It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.
> 
> 
> But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.
> 
> 
> You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did.
> 
> For you to question my personal preferences as far as television shows, truly makes you someone who clearly has too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession.
> 
> 
> IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.
> 
> 
> If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are.
> 
> 
> They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.
> 
> 
> I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews.
> 
> 
> Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.
> 
> 
> If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews.
> 
> 
> So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?
Click to expand...


My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.

The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL  civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.

In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to  judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.


Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.

If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.

But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.

 This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly  entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.

I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.


For different reasons.

By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America,  no matter what.

But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned  with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.

That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".

Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.

That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.

I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> even if what you say is true, then _"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" _(Dictionary.com), and _"Racial prejudice or discrimination"_ (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not?
> 
> 
> 
> No! There are multiple definitions. There  is no "the whole definition" unless only one is provided. The first definition provided is intended to be the most common usage or understanding of the term. That is important to those who wish to best understand what others are trying to say to them.
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> If they're not then what the fuck are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's a secondary meaning or usage of the term.
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is _also_ racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some significant amount of people have been using the term that way, thus it appears as a secondary definition.
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand that you use the term that way. I don't. To make it that simplistic is to render it superfluous imo. IM2 speaks for himself as should you.
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounds like you projecting you onto me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> IM2 is racist because he believes whites as a group are all racist or accept racism. If a white guy kills a black person then to IM2 most whites did it. He may make exceptions for some liberals but only grudgingly. If you disagree with IM2 you are either racist or if black an Uncle Tom. That is racism. He blames all whites for racism even liberals. He makes excuses for bad black behavior and none for white behavior, we just had a conversation about slavery he claims all whites are guilty of slavery and that blacks practicing slavery or selling blacks into slavery are FORCED to do it by whites. Again racism.
Click to expand...


Actually I have stated on many occasions that all whites are not racist. I stated and linked to an IPSOS poll done in 2017 shows that still today 31 percent of all whites hold white supremacist views. That is not all white people. So you're lying.

You have chosen to dismiss the overall impact of white racism on people of color.  The documented evidence shows what it does relative to the slave trade. Now how about the years after blacks ere  freed? Did we create jim crow too?

You are up against a man who has studied these things for the last 35 years retarded sgt. You don't stand a chance repeating your alt right bullshit.


----------



## IM2

You see, retarded sgt dismisses things such as the psychological impact of racism and coping mechanisms used to combat racism. He conflates bad behavior by blacks(never seeing good behavior) and so he comes to simplistic conclusions based upon his racial biases.

He's is too ignorant to understand that what whites like him have done has involved every form of abusive behavior there is. Now today they are trying to continue the mental abuse by employing gaslighting. This history of continuing abuses causes a wide variety of behaviors among those who are the abused.

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

Definition of opinion:1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter ·We asked them for their opinions about the new stadium. b : approval, esteem ·I have no great opinion of his work. 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge ·a person of rigid opinions b : a generally held view ·news programs that shape public opinion 3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert ·My doctor says that I need an operation, but I'm going to get a second opinion. b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based The article discusses the recent Supreme Court opinion.

Definition of delusion:1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated ·under the delusion that they will finish on schedule, delusions of grandeur b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary ·the delusion that someone was out to hurt him; also: the abnormal state marked by such beliefs   2 : the act of tricking or deceiving someone the state of being deluded.

Definition of empirical:1 : originating in or based on observation or experience ·empirical data 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory ·an empirical basis for the theory 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment ·empirical laws 4 : of or relating to empiricism

I present these definitions because so much of racism is based in delusions yet it has been shown that if something is said often enough and not challenged, people will believe it whether true or not. This has been the foundation on which racism has been built. In this post you will be shown examples based on something that has actual existence, originating in or based on observation or experience: relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory, and capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment.

*Racism Is Abuse*

_“Abuse is a form of mistreatment by one individual that causes harm to another person.”_
*National Adult Protective Services Association*

When looked upon critically, racism is a form of abusive behavior based upon a belief in racial superiority.


_ “Bryant-Davis and Ocampo (2005) noted similar courses of psychopathology between rape victims and victims of racism. Both events are an assault on the personhood and integrity of the victim.  Similar to rape victims, race-related trauma victims may respond with disbelief, shock, or dissociation, which can prevent them from responding to the incident in a healthy manner. The victim may then feel shame and self-blame because they were unable to respond or defend themselves, which may lead to low __self-concept__ and self-destructive behaviors. In the same study, a parallel was drawn between race-related trauma victims and victims of __domestic violence__. Both survivors are made to feel shame over allowing themselves to be victimized. For instance, someone who may have experienced a racist incident may be told that if they are polite, work hard, and/or dress in a certain way, they will not encounter racism. When these rules are followed yet racism persists, powerlessness, hyper vigilance, and other symptoms associated with PTSD may develop or worsen (Bryant-Davis & Ocampo, 2005).”_


*Monnica T. Williams Ph.D.*


The psychological impact of racism must be paid attention to if there is ever going to be a true and logical reduction in the behavior. This is mainly due to a refusal to accept that certain behaviors done by nonwhites are caused by white racism. Racism causes chronic stress. Understanding this has serious implications for health outcomes in the black community. While I am not a doctor, what I have read by medical professionals explains how constant stress will create unhealthy outcomes. The continuing racism blacks face keep blacks stressed out and creates chemical imbalances within our bodies causing a wide variety of health problems.

If you study abuse, it has been shown that specific types of abuse can cause different types of behaviors ether positive or negative. I’ve done like many others and have discussed racism with whites in person to person interactions, public social gatherings, online forums, message walls, chat rooms and other social media. I have tried to inform on the impact of racism from the perspective of being black. What I discovered is that a lot of whites really don’t have an understanding about what racism can do to a person. For example, you try explaining to a white person that blacks riot in their communities because of racism and the first thing you hear is, “Come on man white racism did not cause that.”

Racism includes and has included these things:


*Emotional/Psychological abuse* 
*Financial abuse*

*Physical abuse* 
*Sexual abuse* 
*Verbal abuse* 
*Spiritual abuse* 

Tremendous psychological damage has been inflicted on nonwhites because of the racist policies and individual actions by whites in America and worldwide. But some whites seem to think that racism is simple and that it carries no psychological consequences to those who are the victims of it. And they do so because they see nonwhites coping the best way they can with it. Secondly, they tend to look at things based on their perspective, meaning that when they see blacks acting violent they look at it from their experience as whites, never factoring in the damage at every level caused by past and continuing white racism.

_“On occasion, the emotional weight of racism can lead African Americans to engage in maladaptive coping, such as remaining in denial, engaging in substance use, aggression, self-blame – even in extreme cases __suicide__ (i.e., Black Lives Matter activist Marshawn McCarrel) and terrorism (i.e., Dallas shooter Micah Xavier Johnson). These responses are harmful and lead to negative, long-term consequences.”_
*Monnica T. Williams Ph.D.*



“_Proactively Coping With Racism,_ Getting back to our lives in the aftermath of racial violence in the media.”,  _Ryan C.T. DeLapp, MA, and Monnica T. Williams, PhD, Psychology Today,com July 18, 2016_


J. Worell, _Encyclopedia of Women and Gender_ Vol I (2001) p. 603


_Weiten, W. & Lloyd, M.A. (2008) Psychology Applied to Modern Life (9th ed.). Wadsworth Cengage Learning._


_Lazarus, R.S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, Appraisal and Coping. New York: Springer._


Comas-Diaz, L., and Jacobsen, F. M. (1991)._ Clinical Ethnocultural Transference and Countertransference in the Therapeutic Dyad. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 61(3), 392-402._


Fryberg, S. M. (2010)._ When the World Is Colorblind, American Indians Are Invisible: A Diversity Science Approach. Psychological Inquiry, 21(2), 115-119._


https://www.healthyplace.com/abuse/abuse-information/types-of-abuse-what-are-the-different-forms-of-abuse/


_Camara Jules P. Harrell__, __Tanisha I. Burford__, __Brandi N. Cage__, __Travette McNair Nelson__, __Sheronda Shearon__, __Adrian Thompson__, and __Steven Green__,  *Multiple Pathways Linking Racism to Health Outcomes*, __US National Library of Medicine_ _National Institutes of Health_


Charles S. Carver and Jennifer Connor Smith,“Personality and Coping"(2010), The Annual Review of Psychology


https://www.racialhealthequity.org/blog/racism-is-a-public-health-issue


Dennis R. Upkins, *Denying Racism And Other Forms Of Gaslighting, *Aug 24, 2016, Mental Health Matters, derived from: https://mental-health-matters.com/denying-racism-and-other-forms-of-gaslighting/


Pike, Karen D, _“What is Internalized Racial Oppression and Why Don't We Study It? Acknowledging Racism's Hidden Injuries”,_ December 1, 2010, Sociological Perspectives, Vol. 53, Issue 4, pp. 551–572 


Internalized Racism Among Asians Internalized Racism Among Asians


----------



## katsteve2012

daveman said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## RetiredGySgt

LOL you keep coming up with excuses for why you, a racist , are not in fact a racist. And it all boils down to you are black so can not be racist. What a crock of shit. Remind us again how blacks selling slaves was FORCED on them. The mean old White man forced blacks to sell other blacks. Remind us again how black slave owners are better then white slave owners cause they might sell their slaves to a family member.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> LOL you keep coming up with excuses for why you, a racist , are not in fact a racist. And it all boils down to you are black so can not be racist. What a crock of shit. Remind us again how blacks selling slaves was FORCED on them. The mean old White man forced blacks to sell other blacks. Remind us again how black slave owners are better then white slave owners cause they might sell their slaves to a family member.




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

Africans did NOT sell their own people into slavery

*The Liverpool Museum website has a firsthand account of the story of an African boy, Ouladah Equiano violently forced into a life of slavery. It reads in part, “Generally, when the grown people in the neighbourhood were gone far in the fields to labour, the children assembled together in some of the neighbours’ premises to play; and commonly some of us used to get up a tree to look out for any assailant or kidnapper that might come upon us; for they sometimes took those opportunities of our parents’ absence to attack and carry off as many as they could seize...*One day, when all our people were gone out to their works as usual, and only I and my dear sister were left to mind the house, two men and a woman got over our walls, and in a moment seized us both, and without giving us time to cry out, or make resistance, they stopped our mouths, and ran off with us into the nearest wood.”

The young man was thus taken from his country and taken to lands he had not seen before, sold for hundred and seventy two white shells and after six to seven months, arrived at the sea coast. A lot of Africans were kidnapped in this manner, others captured in battles, some sold off into slavery as payments for debts, and more sold as a punishment for crimes committed. They were then traded for goods which reduced them to no more than a commodity. The story of most African-Americans starts in a setting quite similar to Olaudah Equiano’s in Western Africa. It is a story of violence and dehumanisation that can never be forgotten or pushed under the rags of conciliatory denial.

*Beginnings*
The Portuguese are remembered as the first people to start enslaving Africans. They took captured Africans to Europe and the Spanish joined the growing industry, taking Africans to America in 1503. This marked the beginning of what was a macabre commercial enterprise dealing in people. BBC says, “Traders would export manufactured goods to West Africa where they would be exchanged for slaves from African merchants. The slaves were then transported across the Atlantic and sold for huge profits in the Americas.” It was an illustrious business that made many people but the victims rich. Traders in Africa were enriched just as merchants from the West also benefitted.* What has been forgotten is how African communities resisted the trade in persons. The deliberate omission is an attempt to make the communities that remained culpable in a dirty system that only stole their loved ones from them.*

*The Untold Story of Resistance*
It is a fact that there were certain African communities which worked hand in hand with Europeans to sell prisoners of war, criminals and even kidnap slaves for goods. Not much is then said of the resistance of such communities as Benin in what is now Southern Nigeria, and the Fante people of modern Ghana. Africa Speaks says Fante leader King Ansah had his people watch for ships and prevented them from coming ashore. In Benin, the people killed Europeans on sight while leaders in other parts of Africa only realised too late that the slave trade was really just exploitation and they gained little from it.

A Congolese king, Nzinga Mbemba wrote letters to the Portuguese after being awakened to the evil of slavery. In one letter he wrote, “That is why we beg of Your Highness to help and assist us in this matter, commanding your factors that they should not send here either merchants or wares, because it is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of slaves nor outlet for them.”

https://www.africanexponent.com/pos...of-african-resistance-against-the-slave-trade

*Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade*

*In the first place, the Portuguese initiated what eventually became the Trans-Atlantic slave trade mainly through slave raids along the coasts of Africa. *The first of these raids came in 1444 and was led by Lançarote de Freitas. The problem with raiding for slaves was that it was extremely dangerous. For instance, the slave trader Nuno Tristão was killed during an ambush. Slave raiding proved to be an extremely dangerous way to obtain slaves, but buying slaves was much safer and took less effort on the part of the Europeans. Therefore, the first phase of the slave trade began not with a trade, but with a series of raids. This point is especially important because although the slave trade was on some levels based on a partnership between European buyers and African traders, the slave trade did not begin as such.

Moreover, the partnership between the traders and buyers was an uneasy one. The European slave traders often betrayed those who supplied them with slaves. A famous case of this was the African slave trader Daaga who was tricked and captured by slave traders. He was taken to Trinidad where he would eventually lead a mutiny. Another example is given by Anne Bailey in her book _African Voices in the Atlantic Slave Trade_. She mentions the story of Chief Ndorkutsu who had been providing captives to the European traders. Eventually some of the Ndorkutsu’s own relatives were tricked into boarding a slave ship and then taken as slaves to Cuba.

*Typically wars in West Africa were relatively short affairs that left a small number of causalities. The introduction of European weapons made these wars more drawn out and destructive affairs. Moreover, the only way Africans could acquire these firearms was through the trade of slaves. A king of Dahomey once requested that Europeans establish a firearms factory in his nation, but this request went ignored. Firearms became necessary for African nations to defend themselves both from African rivals as well as from European intrusion, but the only way to acquire these weapons was through the slave trade. This situation only benefited the competing European powers that were able to play Africans against each other.*

Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade | HuffPost

*How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?*

So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.

It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's _Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830_, *"The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."*

*Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. *

Did Black People Own Slaves?

Now would you like to discuss the years after slavery, or are you scared?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was in a Rust Belt high school at the time of the show. It was wildly popular among my age group. The boys loved the fast cars and Daisy Duke,and the girls loved the Duke Boys, and dressed like Daisy Duke.
> 
> 
> None of them were from the South. IF you missed this, it suggests a very inward looking circle of friends. Your weird belief that the audience was limited to the south, makes no sense. On many levels. I mean, really, your thinking makes no sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.
> 
> It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.
> 
> 
> It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.
> 
> 
> I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.
> 
> It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.
> 
> 12 Types of Target Audience
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.
> 
> 
> You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.
> 
> 
> It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.
> 
> 
> That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.
> 
> 
> This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.
> 
> 
> "And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"
> 
> 
> "Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> "I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.
> 
> Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.
> 
> Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.
> 
> Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.
> 
> Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.
> 
> James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.
> 
> 
> It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.
> 
> 
> But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.
> 
> 
> You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did.
> 
> For you to question my personal preferences as far as television shows, truly makes you someone who clearly has too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession.
> 
> 
> IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.
> 
> 
> If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are.
> 
> 
> They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.
> 
> 
> I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews.
> 
> 
> Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.
> 
> 
> If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews.
> 
> 
> So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.
> 
> The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL  civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.
> 
> In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to  judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.
> 
> 
> Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.
Click to expand...


*
IT IS NOT THE SHOW. IT IS THAT AMERICA AS A WHOLE ACCEPTED IT'S PORTRAYAL OF THE SYMBOLS AS HARMLESS AND NOT RACIST.*



> If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.




Was accepting. Since then, you lefties have grown in power and intolerance and become more aggressive in The Culture War. But what happened in the more recent past, does not change the historical record of over 150 years of acceptance.





> But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.
> 
> This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly  entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.
> 
> I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.




Quite a lot of people. But more to the point, none of them, AND none of those that did not watch the show, seemed to have any problem with the depiction of the symbols as harmless regional pride.

I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.

But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.





> By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America,  no matter what.




Incorrect. Try again without the spin.





> But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned  with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.
> 
> That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".
> 
> Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.




I do when they are an assault on my views and my heritage and my interests. Or, "or".






> That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.
> 
> I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/






Do you admit that the people of the 1980s, who endorsed the celebration of the symbols of the Confederate Flag and The General Lee,

were doing so, in their view, as harmless symbols of regional pride, and thus for you to judge them, or treat them as though they were celebrating those symbols as though they agreed with YOU, that they were symbols of racism,


would be wrong of you?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> even if what you say is true, then _"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" _(Dictionary.com), and _"Racial prejudice or discrimination"_ (Merriam-Webster's) are part of the whole definition, are they not?
> 
> 
> 
> No! There are multiple definitions. There  is no "the whole definition" unless only one is provided.
Click to expand...


You're the one who brought up "whole" definitions.



> The first definition provided is intended to be the most common usage or understanding of the term. That is important to those who wish to best understand what others are trying to say to them.



And? It's still not the only definition of the word.



Ghost of a Rider said:


> If they're not then what the fuck are they doing there? If racial prejudice is not racism then why does the dictionary also list this definition or this part of the definition?





> Because it's a secondary meaning or usage of the term.



But it's there, yes? "Prejudice or discrimination" are still valid even if the first definition is most often used, correct?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you really not understand that the dictionary is saying that racial prejudice is _also_ racism?





> Some significant amount of people have been using the term that way, thus it appears as a secondary definition.



But do you understand that the dictionary is saying that prejudice is _also_ racism?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Do you really not understand that if IM2 assumes I lied because I'm white, that this constitutes racism as per the dictionary?





> I understand that you use the term that way. I don't.



Whether you do or not is irrelevant; the dictionary still defines it as such.



> To make it that simplistic is to render it superfluous imo.



You use the first definition and I referred to the second and third definitions. If I'm making it simplistic then so are you.

BTW, just to clear up any possible misunderstanding on your part, I also hold to the first definition and I think it's valid. I just don't think it covers every aspect of the meaning of the word.



> IM2 speaks for himself as should you.



IM2 does not speak for himself and he most certainly did not speak for himself when he called me a liar. What do you think all this is about?



Ghost of a Rider said:


> Are you really not grasping this simple concept? Are you really not getting any of this or are you just arguing to argue?





> Sounds like you projecting you onto me.



Projecting what? I'm simply going by the dictionary definition that _you_ cited, albeit partially.

Let's revisit Merriam-Webster's definition:_ "*A belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities* and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. Racial prejudice or discrimination."
_
What this means is that if one believes that any one trait, ability (or lack thereof), flaw, etc. is endemic or characteristic of a particular race, that is a form of racism. Therefore, if I was to say something about blacks and fried chicken, you would say I'm a racist with no hesitation, without even ascertaining whether or not I think blacks are inferior, would you not?

By the same token, if IM2 prejudges me a liar then he did so because I'm white as there was no reason or evidence for him to make this assumption.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> I will accept IM2's opinions from their source. Some of your apoplectic attempts to summarize his views are somewhat entertaining to read. I'll grant you that much.



If he was wrong about me concocting my story then it raises the obvious question: What else is he wrong about?

He consistently, persistently and insistently gets things wrong about my story despite being told numerous times what happened. Example: That I "narced" on my black coworker for not wearing gloves (I did not). That I said that blacks are lazy and incompetent (I did not). That I never reprimanded white coworkers the same way (I did).

Sorry, but IM2 has proven that his opinions are only as valid as his esteem of the person he is addressing. If he likes you and you generally agree with him and pander to his Blacks-can't-be-racist ideology, you get a lot of Thank You!, Agree, and Winner! ratings. But if he dislikes you or thinks you're racist or disagree with him on _any_ aspect of race/racism, no matter how small, his assumptions and opinions are all over the map and usually wrong.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Here's what Google provides:
> 
> 
> 
> rac·ism
> /ˈrāˌsizəm/
> 
> _noun_
> noun: *racism*
> 
> prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race *based on the belief that one's own race is superior.*
> "a program to combat racism"
> the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, *especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.*
> "theories of racism"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mirriam-Webster:
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of racism*
> 
> 1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities *and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry,
> 
> 
> 
> if a black man assumes I'm singling him out, because he's black and I'm white, simply for asking him to put gloves on
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..does not appear.
Click to expand...




Dude, you are being pathetic.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to pay more attention. I just told Grumblefish today that I have had white coworkers removed from the vessel. In fact, every one of them was white.
> 
> And, for the thousandth time - pay attention because this will be on the test - I DID NOT TURN HIM IN FOR NOT WEARING THE GLOVES. I didn't turn him in at all. He was being difficult and acting like an asshole because he thought I was picking on him when I spoke to him about the gloves. So I asked the supervisor to sit down with the both of us to resolve the situation and try to convince him that I was not picking on him.
> 
> Why do you insist on getting this wrong every fucking time even after having told you what happened a hundred times?
Click to expand...



Because he knows that if he actually addresses what you actually said, his stonewalling, and thus him, will look even stupider than they already do. 

Very normal behavior for liberals. They have to do that, all the time, to pretend to win arguments.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL you keep coming up with excuses for why you, a racist , are not in fact a racist. And it all boils down to you are black so can not be racist. What a crock of shit. Remind us again how blacks selling slaves was FORCED on them. The mean old White man forced blacks to sell other blacks. Remind us again how black slave owners are better then white slave owners cause they might sell their slaves to a family member.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Definition of fact: 1 a : something that has actual existence ·space exploration is now a fact b : an actual occurrence ·prove the fact of damage 2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality ·These are the hard facts of the case. 3 : the quality of being actual : actuality ·a question of fact hinges on evidence 4 : a thing done: such as a : crime ·accessory after the fact b archaic : action c obsolete : feat*
> 
> Africans did NOT sell their own people into slavery
> 
> *The Liverpool Museum website has a firsthand account of the story of an African boy, Ouladah Equiano violently forced into a life of slavery. It reads in part, “Generally, when the grown people in the neighbourhood were gone far in the fields to labour, the children assembled together in some of the neighbours’ premises to play; and commonly some of us used to get up a tree to look out for any assailant or kidnapper that might come upon us; for they sometimes took those opportunities of our parents’ absence to attack and carry off as many as they could seize...*One day, when all our people were gone out to their works as usual, and only I and my dear sister were left to mind the house, two men and a woman got over our walls, and in a moment seized us both, and without giving us time to cry out, or make resistance, they stopped our mouths, and ran off with us into the nearest wood.”
> 
> The young man was thus taken from his country and taken to lands he had not seen before, sold for hundred and seventy two white shells and after six to seven months, arrived at the sea coast. A lot of Africans were kidnapped in this manner, others captured in battles, some sold off into slavery as payments for debts, and more sold as a punishment for crimes committed. They were then traded for goods which reduced them to no more than a commodity. The story of most African-Americans starts in a setting quite similar to Olaudah Equiano’s in Western Africa. It is a story of violence and dehumanisation that can never be forgotten or pushed under the rags of conciliatory denial.
> 
> *Beginnings*
> The Portuguese are remembered as the first people to start enslaving Africans. They took captured Africans to Europe and the Spanish joined the growing industry, taking Africans to America in 1503. This marked the beginning of what was a macabre commercial enterprise dealing in people. BBC says, “Traders would export manufactured goods to West Africa where they would be exchanged for slaves from African merchants. The slaves were then transported across the Atlantic and sold for huge profits in the Americas.” It was an illustrious business that made many people but the victims rich. Traders in Africa were enriched just as merchants from the West also benefitted.* What has been forgotten is how African communities resisted the trade in persons. The deliberate omission is an attempt to make the communities that remained culpable in a dirty system that only stole their loved ones from them.*
> 
> *The Untold Story of Resistance*
> It is a fact that there were certain African communities which worked hand in hand with Europeans to sell prisoners of war, criminals and even kidnap slaves for goods. Not much is then said of the resistance of such communities as Benin in what is now Southern Nigeria, and the Fante people of modern Ghana. Africa Speaks says Fante leader King Ansah had his people watch for ships and prevented them from coming ashore. In Benin, the people killed Europeans on sight while leaders in other parts of Africa only realised too late that the slave trade was really just exploitation and they gained little from it.
> 
> A Congolese king, Nzinga Mbemba wrote letters to the Portuguese after being awakened to the evil of slavery. In one letter he wrote, “That is why we beg of Your Highness to help and assist us in this matter, commanding your factors that they should not send here either merchants or wares, because it is our will that in these Kingdoms there should not be any trade of slaves nor outlet for them.”
> 
> https://www.africanexponent.com/pos...of-african-resistance-against-the-slave-trade
> 
> *Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade*
> 
> *In the first place, the Portuguese initiated what eventually became the Trans-Atlantic slave trade mainly through slave raids along the coasts of Africa. *The first of these raids came in 1444 and was led by Lançarote de Freitas. The problem with raiding for slaves was that it was extremely dangerous. For instance, the slave trader Nuno Tristão was killed during an ambush. Slave raiding proved to be an extremely dangerous way to obtain slaves, but buying slaves was much safer and took less effort on the part of the Europeans. Therefore, the first phase of the slave trade began not with a trade, but with a series of raids. This point is especially important because although the slave trade was on some levels based on a partnership between European buyers and African traders, the slave trade did not begin as such.
> 
> Moreover, the partnership between the traders and buyers was an uneasy one. The European slave traders often betrayed those who supplied them with slaves. A famous case of this was the African slave trader Daaga who was tricked and captured by slave traders. He was taken to Trinidad where he would eventually lead a mutiny. Another example is given by Anne Bailey in her book _African Voices in the Atlantic Slave Trade_. She mentions the story of Chief Ndorkutsu who had been providing captives to the European traders. Eventually some of the Ndorkutsu’s own relatives were tricked into boarding a slave ship and then taken as slaves to Cuba.
> 
> *Typically wars in West Africa were relatively short affairs that left a small number of causalities. The introduction of European weapons made these wars more drawn out and destructive affairs. Moreover, the only way Africans could acquire these firearms was through the trade of slaves. A king of Dahomey once requested that Europeans establish a firearms factory in his nation, but this request went ignored. Firearms became necessary for African nations to defend themselves both from African rivals as well as from European intrusion, but the only way to acquire these weapons was through the slave trade. This situation only benefited the competing European powers that were able to play Africans against each other.*
> 
> Did We Sell Each Other Into Slavery: Misconceptions About the African Involvement in the Slave Trade | HuffPost
> 
> *How Many Slaves Did Blacks Own?*
> 
> So what do the actual numbers of black slave owners and their slaves tell us? In 1830, the year most carefully studied by Carter G. Woodson, about 13.7 percent (319,599) of the black population was free. Of these, 3,776 free Negroes owned 12,907 slaves, out of a total of 2,009,043 slaves owned in the entire United States, so the numbers of slaves owned by black people over all was quite small by comparison with the number owned by white people. In his essay, " 'The Known World' of Free Black Slaveholders," Thomas J. Pressly, using Woodson's statistics, calculated that 54 (or about 1 percent) of these black slave owners in 1830 owned between 20 and 84 slaves; 172 (about 4 percent) owned between 10 to 19 slaves; and 3,550 (about 94 percent) each owned between 1 and 9 slaves. Crucially, 42 percent owned just one slave.
> 
> It is reasonable to assume that the 42 percent of the free black slave owners who owned just one slave probably owned a family member to protect that person, as did many of the other black slave owners who owned only slightly larger numbers of slaves. As Woodson put it in 1924's _Free Negro Owners of Slaves in the United States in 1830_, *"The census records show that the majority of the Negro owners of slaves were such from the point of view of philanthropy. In many instances the husband purchased the wife or vice versa … Slaves of Negroes were in some cases the children of a free father who had purchased his wife. If he did not thereafter emancipate the mother, as so many such husbands failed to do, his own children were born his slaves and were thus reported to the numerators."*
> 
> *Moreover, Woodson explains, "Benevolent Negroes often purchased slaves to make their lot easier by granting them their freedom for a nominal sum, or by permitting them to work it out on liberal terms." In other words, these black slave-owners, the clear majority, cleverly used the system of slavery to protect their loved ones. *
> 
> Did Black People Own Slaves?
> 
> Now would you like to discuss the years after slavery, or are you scared?
Click to expand...




No one is going to read that shit. You don't have the credibility.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If what I am saying makes no sense to you, it is probably because your circle of friends and life was in a rust belt high school during the time of the show around people that identified with the  characters.
> 
> It is not abnormal for people to identify with a program that they can relate to, in fact, people who like certain shows, usually do for that reason.
> 
> 
> It is commonly referred to as a "target audience" in entertainment marketing, with producers and script writers considering who will most likely watch a given program that is on the air.
> 
> 
> I was long past high school during that time and was on the west coast in a completely different kind of non rural environment, around people that DID NOT identify with that kind of show, or its  characters.
> 
> It seems quite simple to me, and rather narrow minded of you, not to be able to understand that.
> 
> 12 Types of Target Audience
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.
> 
> 
> You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.
> 
> 
> It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.
> 
> 
> That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.
> 
> 
> This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.
> 
> 
> "And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"
> 
> 
> "Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> "I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.
> 
> Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.
> 
> Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.
> 
> Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.
> 
> Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.
> 
> James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.
> 
> 
> It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.
> 
> 
> But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.
> 
> 
> You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did.
> 
> For you to question my personal preferences as far as television shows, truly makes you someone who clearly has too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession.
> 
> 
> IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.
> 
> 
> If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are.
> 
> 
> They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.
> 
> 
> I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews.
> 
> 
> Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.
> 
> 
> If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews.
> 
> 
> So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.
> 
> The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL  civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.
> 
> In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to  judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.
> 
> 
> Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> IT IS NOT THE SHOW. IT IS THAT AMERICA AS A WHOLE ACCEPTED IT'S PORTRAYAL OF THE SYMBOLS AS HARMLESS AND NOT RACIST.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was accepting. Since then, you lefties have grown in power and intolerance and become more aggressive in The Culture War. But what happened in the more recent past, does not change the historical record of over 150 years of acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.
> 
> This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly  entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.
> 
> I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot of people. But more to the point, none of them, AND none of those that did not watch the show, seemed to have any problem with the depiction of the symbols as harmless regional pride.
> 
> I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.
> 
> But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America,  no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Try again without the spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned  with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.
> 
> That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".
> 
> Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do when they are an assault on my views and my heritage and my interests. Or, "or".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.
> 
> I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you admit that the people of the 1980s, who endorsed the celebration of the symbols of the Confederate Flag and The General Lee,
> 
> were doing so, in their view, as harmless symbols of regional pride, and thus for you to judge them, or treat them as though they were celebrating those symbols as though they agreed with YOU, that they were symbols of racism,
> 
> 
> would be wrong of you?
Click to expand...


One last time. S L O W L Y. Before I depart from this silly circular argument that you are so intent on engaging in:


1.  I do not care if YOU or anyone else sees your Confederate flag as a "harmless symbol of regional pride that has stood for 150 years".

I witnessed it being present in the hands of racist, anti civil rights scum in the early 1960's. In case you did not realize it, the 1960's were LESS than 60  years ago. So you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me that most of the country has viewed  it  as "harmless" for that length of time.

2. I will not admit to something that I disagree with for the sake of making you comfortable.

3. I am not "incorrect" in my view of what your so called "positions" revolve around. It is obvious that anything that you remotely perceive as not being aligned with your extremely radical, far  right, pro white agenda, you consider to be an assault on ALL white people, as a self proclaimed spokesperson for that demographic, evidenced by your attempt to lecture me on a topic that you have no understanding of or experience with.

3.  Your insistence on labeling others who do not agree with your views as "lefties" is a tactic that you default to in nearly every thread that I've seen you present in. And then after that, you progress to "race baiting asshole" as your next level of defense. Which is exactly why I normally don't respond to much of what you have to say.

Most rabidly political zealots of any kind are normally impossible to reason with.  And I usually don't waste valuable time attempting to do so. 

Therefore I am agreeing to disagree and you are entitled to your views, but realize that you are nowhere near informed enough and lack the life experience to be critical of mine.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.
> 
> But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.


I looked for a minute and found this nice little story ending with:


> It would be nice to go back to that time of racial innocence when I looked at the Duke boys no differently than myself. When they were just two cool dudes in a cool car. When race didn't matter.


That after relating this unfortunate incident taking place prior:


> On this particular day, it was my turn to drive our wooden version of the General Lee. Right when I was about to sit in the driver's seat, a few of my white male classmates stopped me.
> 
> "You can't drive because you can't be one of the Duke boys," one of them said, as he blocked my path.


Whoa, really? Can't be one of them thar super innocent moonshine transporters on probation, wtf?


> "And why not?" I asked.
> 
> "Because you're black," he said, matter of factly.
> 
> He was right. I was black and the Duke boys were white. That was obvious – at least it was to him. But up until that moment, I don't think it had quite registered with me that skin color mattered in any discernible way.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I understand that. I addressed it several times with references to how in my peer group and family and friends there was fans and not fans.
> 
> 
> You initially assumed it was a show with limited REGIONAL appeal. Now you are trying to down play it as one with a limited target audience appeal.
> 
> 
> 
> The Dukes of Hazzard - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> The show topped out in it's third season as the SECOND highest show of the year, with over 21 million viewers.
> 
> 
> It was a family friendly action comedy. With widespread appeal.
> 
> 
> That your circle of friends didn't include anyone that liked it, is your circle of friends being limited.
> 
> 
> 
> You should read some of these. I only read the first couple. These are old fans remembering good clean fun stories. Not one mentions the Confederate flag or racism, that I saw. Many of them discuss how nice and good the characters were, and how nice it was to watch with family.
> 
> 
> This fits my perception of the show. Your perception of it, not.
> 
> 
> "And you could always appreciate the country values the Dukes always espoused ... be good to your neighbor, thank the Lord before meals, don't lie or cheat or steal.
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard" is not rocket science, it's not deep or profound or socially redeemable or whatever else. It's just plain heckin' fun!!!!"
> 
> 
> "Eight years after Fred Silverman's infamous "rural purge", this show burst on the scene and instantly became a hit. Even though the show did get a lot of heat for the outlandish plots, simplistic characters and scantily clad women, especially Daisy, this show struck a chord with the American public during the late 70's/early 80's. Also, you could tell that this show was done very tongue in cheek and that the cast had a lot of fun doing it."
> 
> 
> 
> "I remember being eight years old when I started watching this show. I would anxiously await the Friday line up that included The Incredible Hulk, Dallas, Falcon Crest and this one. That was a great Friday line up, highlighted of course by the Dukes. What was so appealing about this show to so many people was it's virtue. I'm sure parents wanted their kids to watch it because you couldn't have a better show for their kids to watch. It was safe. The Dukes were polite, virtuous and church going. How could they not like that? How could a parent object to anything like that? But of course as kids we liked it for different reasons.
> 
> Stunts, fast cars, Daisy, Boss Hogg and Roscoe. The Dukes of Hazard was so absurd sometimes but it always entertained you and more often than not it made you laugh. Could you imagine what the script must have looked like when they first pitched it to studio? Could you imagine how silly Roscoe must have looked on paper? I mean how do you write in his ridiculous laugh? How do you write all of his idiosyncrasies? Or was that all James Best? I don't know, but it sure was funny."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Dukes of Hazzard is to me, a great southern series with comedy and adventure. It's actually nice to take a breather from all the dramas and shows where stories take place in either New York, Los Angeles, or Chicago. And this show delivered. Tom Wopat and John Schneider were excellent as Bo and Luke Duke and their real life friendship provided the perfect chemistry for their characters, which is why I felt the show was so popular and this friendship was established before they auditioned together.
> 
> Daisy Duke is truly a super beautiful girl and very nice in real life, since I've had the honor of meeting Catherine Bach as well as the other surviving cast members. Even I loved Daisy Duke and it's hard to imagine a guy growing up back then who didn't feel that way.
> 
> Denver Pyle as Uncle Jese was truly the backbone of the series. I also fondly recall watching him as Mad Jack on Grizzly Adams as well as Pa Darling on the Andy Griffith Show. He was also a good example of a Christian man since he was also the moral backbone of the series as well.
> 
> Sorrell Booke was what I call a comical villain. He wasn't even a real villain for that matter. Although he and Uncle Jesse were enemies, they were also old friends. Boss Hogg was hilarious in those ridiculous white outfits and all that eating he did. I couldn't even think about eating all that he had.
> 
> James Best. There's not enough complimentary words to describe him. He has to be one of the funniest and most talented actors in history. Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane made me laugh more than any other character. His sputtering and all those sayings of his like Cuff em and Stuff em! are now legend. Whoever heard of a stupid sheriff? Watch this show and you'll see him in action. I also loved his Bassett Hound Flash."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You should watch a few episodes. Or at least read a LOT of the reviews. Your view of the world, and the people in it, are just plain wrong.
> 
> 
> This family friendly, fun,  tone, and perception WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE IF YOUR VIEW OF THE CONFEDERATE FLAG AND SOUTHERN PRIDE WAS CORRECT.
> 
> 
> It is valid for you to hold the position, that the "rebranding" was wrong.
> 
> 
> But for you to pretend it did not happen, and to judge people (or shows) as though it did not happen, is not reasonable.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it puts you in the position of being an asshole.
> 
> 
> You really want to call these people, like the one who was EIGHT when he was  fan, watching the show with his dad, you want to call him out for being a fan of  tv heroes that had a Confederate Flag on the roof of their car?
> 
> 
> 
> EVERYONE ELSE IN AMERICA KNEW IT WAS JUST A FUN TV SHOW. IF YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS DID NOT, THERE WAS/IS SOMETHING WRONG WITH YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did.
> 
> For you to question my personal preferences as far as television shows, truly makes you someone who clearly has too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession.
> 
> 
> IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.
> 
> 
> If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are.
> 
> 
> They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.
> 
> 
> I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews.
> 
> 
> Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.
> 
> 
> If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews.
> 
> 
> So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.
> 
> The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL  civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.
> 
> In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to  judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.
> 
> 
> Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> IT IS NOT THE SHOW. IT IS THAT AMERICA AS A WHOLE ACCEPTED IT'S PORTRAYAL OF THE SYMBOLS AS HARMLESS AND NOT RACIST.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was accepting. Since then, you lefties have grown in power and intolerance and become more aggressive in The Culture War. But what happened in the more recent past, does not change the historical record of over 150 years of acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.
> 
> This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly  entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.
> 
> I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot of people. But more to the point, none of them, AND none of those that did not watch the show, seemed to have any problem with the depiction of the symbols as harmless regional pride.
> 
> I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.
> 
> But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America,  no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Try again without the spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned  with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.
> 
> That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".
> 
> Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do when they are an assault on my views and my heritage and my interests. Or, "or".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.
> 
> I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you admit that the people of the 1980s, who endorsed the celebration of the symbols of the Confederate Flag and The General Lee,
> 
> were doing so, in their view, as harmless symbols of regional pride, and thus for you to judge them, or treat them as though they were celebrating those symbols as though they agreed with YOU, that they were symbols of racism,
> 
> 
> would be wrong of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One last time. S L O W L Y. Before I depart from this silly circular argument that you are so intent on engaging in:
> 
> 
> 1.  I do not care if YOU or anyone else sees your Confederate flag as a "harmless symbol of regional pride that has stood for 150 years".
> 
> I witnessed it being present in the hands of racist, anti civil rights scum in the early 1960's. In case you did not realize it, the 1960's were LESS than 60  years ago. So you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me that most of the country has viewed  it  as "harmless" for that length of time.
Click to expand...



Why do you give those relatively few racists what they want ie the power to co-opt those symbols for their purposes? 





> 2. I will not admit to something that I disagree with for the sake of making you comfortable.



But on what grounds can you disagree with me? The evidence from the show is clear, good clean fun. 





> 3. I am not "incorrect" in my view of what your so called "positions" revolve around. It is obvious that anything that you remotely perceive as not being aligned with your extremely radical, far  right, pro white agenda, you consider to be an assault on ALL white people, as a self proclaimed spokesperson for that demographic, evidenced by your attempt to lecture me on a topic that you have no understanding of or experience with.




My understanding and experience is just as valid as your own. We live in an insane world, were you can say something like, "your views are invalid because you are white", and expect to be taken seriously.






> 3.  Your insistence on labeling others who do not agree with your views as "lefties" is a tactic that you default to in nearly every thread that I've seen you present in. And then after that, you progress to "race baiting asshole" as your next level of defense. Which is exactly why I normally don't respond to much of what you have to say.
> 
> Most rabidly political zealots of any kind are normally impossible to reason with.  And I usually don't waste valuable time attempting to do so.




For a number of posts in a row, you've managed to be relatively civil and actually address the topic and my points, seriously and I believe, honesty. 


Note how I have replied in kind. 


I treat people with the level of respect they show me. When you see me calling people "lefties" or "race baiting assholes" it is because they have taken the discussion to that level.


If you withdraw from the conversation at this point, it is not because I have been rude to you. I have not. So, don't kid yourself with that excuse.






> Therefore I am agreeing to disagree and you are entitled to your views, but realize that you are nowhere near informed enough and lack the life experience to be critical of mine.
> 
> View attachment 313841




So, all you have to refute my many cited examples, from the BLue and Grey Reunion, to the Dukes of Hazzard, to Obama sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial, 


is that I am white, and thus my views can be discounted.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to pay more attention. I just told Grumblefish today that I have had white coworkers removed from the vessel. In fact, every one of them was white.
> 
> And, for the thousandth time - pay attention because this will be on the test - I DID NOT TURN HIM IN FOR NOT WEARING THE GLOVES. I didn't turn him in at all. He was being difficult and acting like an asshole because he thought I was picking on him when I spoke to him about the gloves. So I asked the supervisor to sit down with the both of us to resolve the situation and try to convince him that I was not picking on him.
> 
> Why do you insist on getting this wrong every fucking time even after having told you what happened a hundred times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he knows that if he actually addresses what you actually said, his stonewalling, and thus him, will look even stupider than they already do.
> 
> Very normal behavior for liberals. They have to do that, all the time, to pretend to win arguments.
Click to expand...


He's got a narrative that he truly believes in (that blacks can't be racist) and nothing, not even the truth, will divert him from that. In his mind, he cannot allow that the guy simply overreacted. So he throws assumptions out there like, my being the white guy, I MUST have done something to piss the guy off or that the guy MUST have observed me treating the whites differently or, whatever allows him to keep pushing his narrative so he won't have to objectively examine the events.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.
> 
> But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.
> 
> 
> 
> I looked for a minute and found this nice little story ending with:
> 
> 
> 
> It would be nice to go back to that time of racial innocence when I looked at the Duke boys no differently than myself. When they were just two cool dudes in a cool car. When race didn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That after relating this unfortunate incident taking place prior:
> 
> 
> 
> On this particular day, it was my turn to drive our wooden version of the General Lee. Right when I was about to sit in the driver's seat, a few of my white male classmates stopped me.
> 
> "You can't drive because you can't be one of the Duke boys," one of them said, as he blocked my path.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whoa, really? Can't be one of them thar super innocent moonshine transporters on probation, wtf?
> 
> 
> 
> "And why not?" I asked.
> 
> "Because you're black," he said, matter of factly.
> 
> He was right. I was black and the Duke boys were white. That was obvious – at least it was to him. But up until that moment, I don't think it had quite registered with me that skin color mattered in any discernible way.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



That is not a complaint about the show, and it's use of confederate symbols.


You could not find any either. That is my point. NO ONE COMPLAINED. EVERYONE ACCEPTED IT.


That shows the way that, until very recently, America as a whole, viewed those symbols.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really need to pay more attention. I just told Grumblefish today that I have had white coworkers removed from the vessel. In fact, every one of them was white.
> 
> And, for the thousandth time - pay attention because this will be on the test - I DID NOT TURN HIM IN FOR NOT WEARING THE GLOVES. I didn't turn him in at all. He was being difficult and acting like an asshole because he thought I was picking on him when I spoke to him about the gloves. So I asked the supervisor to sit down with the both of us to resolve the situation and try to convince him that I was not picking on him.
> 
> Why do you insist on getting this wrong every fucking time even after having told you what happened a hundred times?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he knows that if he actually addresses what you actually said, his stonewalling, and thus him, will look even stupider than they already do.
> 
> Very normal behavior for liberals. They have to do that, all the time, to pretend to win arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He's got a narrative that he truly believes in (that blacks can't be racist) and nothing, not even the truth, will divert him from that. In his mind, he cannot allow that the guy simply overreacted. So he throws assumptions out there like, my being the white guy, I MUST have done something to piss the guy off or that the guy MUST have observed me treating the whites differently or, whatever allows him to keep pushing his narrative so he won't have to objectively examine the events.
Click to expand...



It is amazing that he can't see any problem with having to make up shit, to protect his belief system. 


The lack of self awareness, is incredible.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Therefore, if I was to say something about blacks and fried chicken, you would say I'm a racist with no hesitation, without even ascertaining whether or not I think blacks are inferior, would you not?


Of course not. You're communicating a racial slur or stereotype, but further context is required to conclude one is "racist" else the term is simply superfluous. As IM2 has stated, some form of abuse has to be evident. Actual harm must be detectable. When blacks refer to one another as "nigga" it's all in good fun. Supremacist whites doing it to express their shared belief of superiority is the opposite. To put or keep blacks in their place. Abuse and harm clearly intended. Chris Rock using racial stereotypes in an effort to help us all laugh together at ourselves is not being racist.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will accept IM2's opinions from their source. Some of your apoplectic attempts to summarize his views are somewhat entertaining to read. I'll grant you that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was wrong about me concocting my story then it raises the obvious question: What else is he wrong about?
> 
> He consistently, persistently and insistently gets things wrong about my story despite being told numerous times what happened. Example: That I "narced" on my black coworker for not wearing gloves (I did not). That I said that blacks are lazy and incompetent (I did not). That I never reprimanded white coworkers the same way (I did).
> 
> Sorry, but IM2 has proven that his opinions are only as valid as his esteem of the person he is addressing. If he likes you and you generally agree with him and pander to his Blacks-can't-be-racist ideology, you get a lot of Thank You!, Agree, and Winner! ratings. But if he dislikes you or thinks you're racist or disagree with him on _any_ aspect of race/racism, no matter how small, his assumptions and opinions are all over the map and usually wrong.
Click to expand...

Again, such anecdotes are simply garbage. IM2 supplies sources and quotes for verification. Your word on it, some stranger on the internet, that some story is true and accurate will always count for jack shit by comparison. Concocted story or not, the entire premise is misguided at best.


----------



## Grumblenuts

katsteve2012 said:


> I witnessed it being present in the hands of racist, anti civil rights scum in the early 1960's. In case you did not realize it, the 1960's were LESS than 60 years ago. So you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me that most of the country has viewed it as "harmless" for that length of time.


Exactly. Me 2.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, if I was to say something about blacks and fried chicken, you would say I'm a racist with no hesitation, without even ascertaining whether or not I think blacks are inferior, would you not?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You're communicating a racial slur or stereotype, but further context is required to conclude one is "racist" else the term is simply superfluous. As IM2 has stated, some form of abuse has to be evident.
Click to expand...


Then why does IM2 call me racist? He's never received any abuse from me. For that matter, I've been called racist for much less than a fried chicken comment by two or three other blacks here and by about the same number of whites and none of them have ever received any abuse from me nor have any of them ever heard me say anything offensive or denigrating about blacks. Not one.

Look at some of the things IM2 has said to me or about me in this thread on the subject of my story. I'll give just one example: In one post he says: _"Ghost won't tell us if he ever turned in white workers for the same thing. Again as I stated, he will claim the whites always wore their gloves to justify himself."_

Do you not see what he's doing here? Essentially what he's saying is that he already knows I never reprimanded white workers the same way (even though he has no way of knowing this) and if I say so, it's bullshit.

How does he know this? He doesn't. He presumes this because I'm white. He reinforces this with the idea that blacks can't be racist. That being the case, I MUST be the one who did wrong here or I must have made the story up or I'm not telling the whole story.



> Actual harm must be detectable. When blacks refer to one another as "nigga" it's all in good fun. Supremacist whites doing it to express their shared belief of superiority is the opposite. To put or keep blacks in their place. Abuse and harm clearly intended. Chris Rock using racial stereotypes in an effort to help us all laugh together at ourselves is not being racist.



These days the word "racist" is being tossed out there like confetti for the stupidest reasons. It seems to me that I'm not the one you need to talk to about what the word racism means.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  Affirmative Action, hiring quotas, relaxed standards -- not conservative policies.
> 
> Liberals say you can't succeed without their help -- _and you kiss their ass_.
> 
> No self-respect.  Pathetic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Threats from a pussy like you who's scared of words are less than credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being offended is far different from being scared son. But since I am such a pussy, I guess that means you will engage in a discussion of white racism after slavery.
Click to expand...

Nope.  You don't want discussion.  You want to spew your Hate Whitey garbage and get instant, unthinking endorsement.  I don't do that.  I am not a leftist.


----------



## daveman

katsteve2012 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.
> 
> I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?
Click to expand...

Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will accept IM2's opinions from their source. Some of your apoplectic attempts to summarize his views are somewhat entertaining to read. I'll grant you that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was wrong about me concocting my story then it raises the obvious question: What else is he wrong about?
> 
> He consistently, persistently and insistently gets things wrong about my story despite being told numerous times what happened. Example: That I "narced" on my black coworker for not wearing gloves (I did not). That I said that blacks are lazy and incompetent (I did not). That I never reprimanded white coworkers the same way (I did).
> 
> Sorry, but IM2 has proven that his opinions are only as valid as his esteem of the person he is addressing. If he likes you and you generally agree with him and pander to his Blacks-can't-be-racist ideology, you get a lot of Thank You!, Agree, and Winner! ratings. But if he dislikes you or thinks you're racist or disagree with him on _any_ aspect of race/racism, no matter how small, his assumptions and opinions are all over the map and usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, such anecdotes are simply garbage. IM2 supplies sources and quotes for verification. Your word on it, some stranger on the internet, that some story is true and accurate will always count for jack shit by comparison. Concocted story or not, the entire premise is misguided at best.
Click to expand...



Dude. You know that his story is true. You are pretending otherwise, because it is the only way you have to dodge his far more reasonable arguements.


AND, let's not forget that, 


1. you agree that blacks can be racist.

2. But you are deferring to IM2, because of his skin color.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will accept IM2's opinions from their source. Some of your apoplectic attempts to summarize his views are somewhat entertaining to read. I'll grant you that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was wrong about me concocting my story then it raises the obvious question: What else is he wrong about?
> 
> He consistently, persistently and insistently gets things wrong about my story despite being told numerous times what happened. Example: That I "narced" on my black coworker for not wearing gloves (I did not). That I said that blacks are lazy and incompetent (I did not). That I never reprimanded white coworkers the same way (I did).
> 
> Sorry, but IM2 has proven that his opinions are only as valid as his esteem of the person he is addressing. If he likes you and you generally agree with him and pander to his Blacks-can't-be-racist ideology, you get a lot of Thank You!, Agree, and Winner! ratings. But if he dislikes you or thinks you're racist or disagree with him on _any_ aspect of race/racism, no matter how small, his assumptions and opinions are all over the map and usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, such anecdotes are simply garbage. IM2 supplies sources and quotes for verification. Your word on it, some stranger on the internet, that some story is true and accurate will always count for jack shit by comparison. Concocted story or not, the entire premise is misguided at best.
Click to expand...


What the fuck kind of sources and quotes am I going to get to verify a personal experience for Christ's sake? This is a copout argument. If I was talking about something that could be verified through statistics and history and whatnot, I'd see your point.

So the question becomes: It may be unverifiable but; why would you doubt it?

Personally, I think you believe my story is true or at least know that it is plausible. Two other posters here related similar stories.  This is not about "unverifiable anecdotes" for you. If it was, you would have mentioned it then when I first brought it up, but you didn't. You chose instead to dispute my point and even ask me a question. 

Nay, I think it is a ploy to take attention away from the fact that you know goddamn well that IM2 fucked up.

As for verification, when I first related my story to IM2, he didn't ask for or wait for any kind of verification before pronouncing it bullshit. So "unverifiable anecdotes" be damned.

Whatever IM2 knows about the history of slavery and racism in America, he is completely full of shit when it comes to pretty much anything else and is a rabid racist. And, for the life of me, I cannot understand why people like you and rightwinger continue to kiss his ass when all we ever hear from him is "Shut the fuck up white boy", "No white person is going to tell me..." or "You white assholes...". It truly amazes me.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 lies about black slavery, he makes excuses for black slavers and black slave owners and claims because some blacks fought against it it was not as bad, totally ignoring the white people that fought against slavery around the world.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I've encountered blacks who made their hatred for all whites crystal clear. Being far less worldly decades ago my ego took many hits until I understood how stupid I was being.. IM2 does not even come close imo, but that still wouldn't qualify as racist until someone actually got hurt as a direct result of racial bias in some meaningful, measurable way.  Like getting fired. Got pictures of your bruises, Ghost? Psychiatrist bills? No? Then what exactly are you still crying about, not being believed or taken seriously? Being called names?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Frankly, I'm surprised how civil our black members remain in light of all the shameless white supremacist commentary easily found daily on this forum.  Some of you lily white pansies really need to put away your popguns and try on a pair of big boy pants.


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> Frankly, I'm surprised how civil our black members remain in light of all the shameless white supremacist commentary easily found daily on this forum.  Some of you lily white pansies really need to put away your popguns and try on a pair of big boy pants.


...says the guy who refuses to criticize a black guy for fear of being called racist.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will accept IM2's opinions from their source. Some of your apoplectic attempts to summarize his views are somewhat entertaining to read. I'll grant you that much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If he was wrong about me concocting my story then it raises the obvious question: What else is he wrong about?
> 
> He consistently, persistently and insistently gets things wrong about my story despite being told numerous times what happened. Example: That I "narced" on my black coworker for not wearing gloves (I did not). That I said that blacks are lazy and incompetent (I did not). That I never reprimanded white coworkers the same way (I did).
> 
> Sorry, but IM2 has proven that his opinions are only as valid as his esteem of the person he is addressing. If he likes you and you generally agree with him and pander to his Blacks-can't-be-racist ideology, you get a lot of Thank You!, Agree, and Winner! ratings. But if he dislikes you or thinks you're racist or disagree with him on _any_ aspect of race/racism, no matter how small, his assumptions and opinions are all over the map and usually wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, such anecdotes are simply garbage. IM2 supplies sources and quotes for verification. Your word on it, some stranger on the internet, that some story is true and accurate will always count for jack shit by comparison. Concocted story or not, the entire premise is misguided at best.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the fuck kind of sources and quotes am I going to get to verify a personal experience for Christ's sake? This is a copout argument. If I was talking about something that could be verified through statistics and history and whatnot, I'd see your point.
> 
> So the question becomes: It may be unverifiable but; why would you doubt it?
> 
> Personally, I think you believe my story is true or at least know that it is plausible. Two other posters here related similar stories.  This is not about "unverifiable anecdotes" for you. If it was, you would have mentioned it then when I first brought it up, but you didn't. You chose instead to dispute my point and even ask me a question.
> 
> Nay, I think it is a ploy to take attention away from the fact that you know goddamn well that IM2 fucked up.
> 
> As for verification, when I first related my story to IM2, he didn't ask for or wait for any kind of verification before pronouncing it bullshit. So "unverifiable anecdotes" be damned.
> 
> Whatever IM2 knows about the history of slavery and racism in America, he is completely full of shit when it comes to pretty much anything else and is a rabid racist. And, for the life of me, I cannot understand why people like you and rightwinger continue to kiss his ass when all we ever hear from him is "Shut the fuck up white boy", "No white person is going to tell me..." or "You white assholes...". It truly amazes me.
Click to expand...




Grumble has been clear, about the fact that he is deferring to IM2 on this, because his "minority perspective".


I would like to ask him, how that is not a racist belief that blacks are morally superior to whites, but I know that he could not address such a question. At all. 


I actually doubt that he could comprehend it. I think his brain would freeze up and he would not be able to understand the question.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> I've encountered blacks who made their hatred for all whites crystal clear. Being far less worldly decades ago my ego took many hits until I understood how stupid I was being.. IM2 does not even come close imo, but that still wouldn't qualify as racist until someone actually got hurt as a direct result of racial bias in some meaningful, measurable way.  Like getting fired. Got pictures of your bruises, Ghost? Psychiatrist bills? No? Then what exactly are you still crying about, not being believed or taken seriously? Being called names?




1. Why would a black being racist, be a hit to your ego?

2. Racism does not require harm to be racism. THat is a truly pathetic dodge.

3. Calling out discussion on this issue, "crying" is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Ridicule. And it is just another way of you avoiding dealing with the issue.

4. Being able to accurately describe racist ideas and people is important, as anti-white racism, such as from you and im2, is so widespread. That is why is it important to demand the Truth on this issue. Beyond just the point of this site, ie political discussion.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


>






1. Why would a black being racist, be a hit to your ego?

2. Racism does not require harm to be racism. THat is a truly pathetic dodge.

3. Calling out discussion on this issue, "crying" is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Ridicule. And it is just another way of you avoiding dealing with the issue.

4. Being able to accurately describe racist ideas and people is important, as anti-white racism, such as from you and im2, is so widespread. That is why is it important to demand the Truth on this issue. Beyond just the point of this site, ie political discussion.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> I've encountered blacks who made their hatred for all whites crystal clear. Being far less worldly decades ago my ego took many hits until I understood how stupid I was being.. IM2 does not even come close imo, but that still wouldn't qualify as racist until someone actually got hurt as a direct result of racial bias in some meaningful, measurable way.  Like getting fired. Got pictures of your bruises, Ghost? Psychiatrist bills? No? Then what exactly are you still crying about, not being believed or taken seriously? Being called names?



And IM2? You remember I told you that he calls me racist, right? So where are _his_ bruises and psychiatrist bills? 

You're telling me I would have to lose my job or be physically hurt or traumatized to call it racism, right? Well, I did none of those things to IM2 but he calls me racist anyway. You know full well he was not hurt or traumatized by me in any way but you have nothing to say about this.

You're using bullshit double standards here. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.

Every time I call you on your errors, bullshit, misconceptions and hypocrisy, you resort to the old stale unimaginative tactic of trying to make me look like a crybaby. It's completely ludicrous and intellectually dishonest.

Something you should know: IM2 was the first one to make the racist accusation, and this was after he accused me of making up the story. So ask him to show you the bruises I inflicted on him and to see his psychiatrist bills. When you've seen that he was not hurt in any way, ask him what the fuck he's crying about.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've encountered blacks who made their hatred for all whites crystal clear. Being far less worldly decades ago my ego took many hits until I understood how stupid I was being.. IM2 does not even come close imo, but that still wouldn't qualify as racist until someone actually got hurt as a direct result of racial bias in some meaningful, measurable way.  Like getting fired. Got pictures of your bruises, Ghost? Psychiatrist bills? No? Then what exactly are you still crying about, not being believed or taken seriously? Being called names?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And IM2? You remember I told you that he calls me racist, right? So where are _his_ bruises and psychiatrist bills?
> 
> You're telling me I would have to lose my job or be physically hurt or traumatized to call it racism, right? Well, I did none of those things to IM2 but he calls me racist anyway. You know full well he was not hurt or traumatized by me in any way but you have nothing to say about this.
> 
> You're using bullshit double standards here. This is hypocrisy of the highest order.
> 
> Every time I call you on your errors, bullshit, misconceptions and hypocrisy, you resort to the old stale unimaginative tactic of trying to make me look like a crybaby. It's completely ludicrous and intellectually dishonest.
> 
> Something you should know: IM2 was the first one to make the racist accusation, and this was after he accused me of making up the story. So ask him to show you the bruises I inflicted on him and to see his psychiatrist bills. When you've seen that he was not hurt in any way, ask him what the fuck he's crying about.
Click to expand...




IM2 is black. YOu are white. Thus, Ghost, being a liberal, has different standards for you, based on race.


This is not racist, because, "reasons".


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Being able to accurately describe racist ideas and people is important, as anti-white racism, such as from you and im2, is so widespread. That is why is it important


Oh "anti-white racism" "is so widespread" now? So "important"? How about anti-black racism? Anti-woman sexism? Anti-gay bigotry? I'm sure they all just pale in comparison. Such a bundle of joy and compassion, you are.. Boggles the mind!


----------



## Bo Didleysquat

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to accurately describe racist ideas and people is important, as anti-white racism, such as from you and im2, is so widespread. That is why is it important
> 
> 
> 
> Oh "anti-white racism" "is so widespread" now? So "important"? How about anti-black racism? Anti-woman sexism? Anti-gay bigotry? I'm sure they all just pale in comparison. Such a bundle of joy and compassion, you are.. Boggles the mind!
Click to expand...


White male fragility syndrome is quite widespread.  Note the shrill victimy moans of the white males who bought into the glory of American style capitalism only to have their livelihoods outsourced to communists by the capitalists they trusted.  Now we're all shocked at the locally empty shelves we used to scoff at in other countries we attacked with sanctions and blockades we placed at the behest of our capitalists.

Didn't happen overnight, did indeed happen bipaertisanly.  It's a bit to digest and confront if one has not been paying attention for decades I suppose.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Grumblenuts said:


> I've encountered blacks who made their hatred for all whites crystal clear. Being far less worldly decades ago my ego took many hits until I understood how stupid I was being.. IM2 does not even come close imo, but that still wouldn't qualify as racist until someone actually got hurt as a direct result of racial bias in some meaningful, measurable way.  Like getting fired. Got pictures of your bruises, Ghost? Psychiatrist bills? No? Then what exactly are you still crying about, not being believed or taken seriously? Being called names?


And yet Ascelopis IM2 and the new dude all claim names are all it takes to be a white racist and YOU agree.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Grumblenuts said:


> Frankly, I'm surprised how civil our black members remain in light of all the shameless white supremacist commentary easily found daily on this forum.  Some of you lily white pansies really need to put away your popguns and try on a pair of big boy pants.


Wait, in the above post you stated unless actual harm was done it wasn't racism, now you are claim just words by white people cause blacks harm. Are blacks so weak that words are all it takes to cause harm? Or are you, as usual using a double standard, one for whitey and one for the black members?


----------



## Street Juice

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> It most likely will be sometime after a black Republican candidate announces his'her candidacy.
> 
> You know we can't just conscript people, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've had black republicans announce before.
Click to expand...

Black Republicans have announced before, yes, but, unlike Democrats, Republicans don't vote for skin color. Alan Keyes didn't win the Republican nomination--not because he was black, but because he wasn't presidential material.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, if I was to say something about blacks and fried chicken, you would say I'm a racist with no hesitation, without even ascertaining whether or not I think blacks are inferior, would you not?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You're communicating a racial slur or stereotype, but further context is required to conclude one is "racist" else the term is simply superfluous. As IM2 has stated, some form of abuse has to be evident. Actual harm must be detectable. When blacks refer to one another as "nigga" it's all in good fun. Supremacist whites doing it to express their shared belief of superiority is the opposite. To put or keep blacks in their place. Abuse and harm clearly intended. Chris Rock using racial stereotypes in an effort to help us all laugh together at ourselves is not being racist.
Click to expand...


Whites eat fried chicken, whites have made millions off fried chicken franchises and in the farming, processing and distribution of chickens, so to talk about blacks and chicken is portraying a racist stereotype that needs to stop.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised how civil our black members remain in light of all the shameless white supremacist commentary easily found daily on this forum.  Some of you lily white pansies really need to put away your popguns and try on a pair of big boy pants.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, in the above post you stated unless actual harm was done it wasn't racism, now you are claim just words by white people cause blacks harm. Are blacks so weak that words are all it takes to cause harm? Or are you, as usual using a double standard, one for whitey and one for the black members?
Click to expand...


It is this simplisrtic opinion that many whites have that is part of the problem.

Racism is more than a word used as a slur, and it causes damage that is not temporary.  Many outside of the African American or other non-white communities do not seem to understand to what extent racism can drive a person to unhealthy and societally negative behaviors. Reality dictates that emotions are involved in this matter and there is a very wide spectrum of emotions people will express in such situations.  To understand the dual standards in such thinking, white people here get all bent out of shape because I present white behavior that is documented in ther annals of American history. Using the word white has got people like you  whining about my racism, but  yet you are here talking about how blacks must be weak because of words. But white racism has been more than words. Actions detrimental to our survival have resulted after those words were spoken.

_Findings from large-scale national studies indicate that, while African Americans have a lower risk for many __anxiety __disorders, they have a 9.1% prevalence rate for PTSD, compared to 6.8% in Whites (Himle et al, 2009). That means that _*almost one in ten Black people becomes traumatized*_, and I think these rates may actually be higher since diagnosticians are usually not considering the role of racism in causing trauma (Malcoun, Williams, & Bahojb-Nouri, 2015)._
*Dennis R. Upkins*

Racism causes PTSD. PTSD is no respecter of socioeconomic status. Rich blacks and poor blacks are suffering with PTSD as result of the racism we all must endure. Therefore, simple minded comments such as “just get over it”, “move beyond race”, and “why can’t you get past racism” is a show of just how ignorant people are to what racism entails.

So many people who are white who have never felt how racism feels when its directed to you, have sermons to preach about how one can get beyond this. But as in any other form of abuse there are things that trigger the stressors which bring back the negative experiences felt because of racism. I have a simple layman’s understanding of psychology. I am no expert on PTSD. What I have been told is that when a person has this disorder there can be events that trigger the old terror the individual went through due to the past abuse. So then looking at racism as people of color who continue to see acts of racism in all the various iterations, it is important to recognize how these events trigger a reminder to people of color of the bad experiences they had due to racism and because of that certain behaviors might arise or resurface.

So hearing a racial slur or racist comment can trigger memories of bad experiences blacks have had due to racism. It is easy for those who have never been done this way to make silly comments thinking they are making sense, but you aren't and you need to learn to just shut up. If you cannot present a positive to this situation, stand down and let us work with whites who want to do so instead of crying about how somebody hates all whites because they don't like a specific group of whites like you who happen to be practicing racism.

You said you have black family members, but you don't. Because if you had, you would understand things like this.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how you don't want to talk about the 189 years whites got affirmative action before the executive order.
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Threats from a pussy like you who's scared of words are less than credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being offended is far different from being scared son. But since I am such a pussy, I guess that means you will engage in a discussion of white racism after slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  You don't want discussion.  You want to spew your Hate Whitey garbage and get instant, unthinking endorsement.  I don't do that.  I am not a leftist.
Click to expand...

I understand your fear. If citing historical fact is hate whitey, maybe whitey should not have done the things recorded.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised how civil our black members remain in light of all the shameless white supremacist commentary easily found daily on this forum.  Some of you lily white pansies really need to put away your popguns and try on a pair of big boy pants.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, in the above post you stated unless actual harm was done it wasn't racism, now you are claim just words by white people cause blacks harm. Are blacks so weak that words are all it takes to cause harm? Or are you, as usual using a double standard, one for whitey and one for the black members?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is this simplisrtic opinion that many whites have that is part of the problem.
> 
> Racism is more than a word used as a slur, and it causes damage that is not temporary.  Many outside of the African American or other non-white communities do not seem to understand to what extent racism can drive a person to unhealthy and societally negative behaviors. Reality dictates that emotions are involved in this matter and there is a very wide spectrum of emotions people will express in such situations.  To understand the dual standards in such thinking, white people here get all bent out of shape because I present white behavior that is documented in ther annals of American history. Using the word white has got people like you  whining about my racism, but  yet you are here talking about how blacks must be weak because of words. But white racism has been more than words. Actions detrimental to our survival have resulted after those words were spoken.
> 
> _Findings from large-scale national studies indicate that, while African Americans have a lower risk for many __anxiety __disorders, they have a 9.1% prevalence rate for PTSD, compared to 6.8% in Whites (Himle et al, 2009). That means that _*almost one in ten Black people becomes traumatized*_, and I think these rates may actually be higher since diagnosticians are usually not considering the role of racism in causing trauma (Malcoun, Williams, & Bahojb-Nouri, 2015)._
> *Dennis R. Upkins*
> 
> Racism causes PTSD. PTSD is no respecter of socioeconomic status. Rich blacks and poor blacks are suffering with PTSD as result of the racism we all must endure. Therefore, simple minded comments such as “just get over it”, “move beyond race”, and “why can’t you get past racism” is a show of just how ignorant people are to what racism entails.
> 
> So many people who are white who have never felt how racism feels when its directed to you, have sermons to preach about how one can get beyond this. But as in any other form of abuse there are things that trigger the stressors which bring back the negative experiences felt because of racism. I have a simple layman’s understanding of psychology. I am no expert on PTSD. What I have been told is that when a person has this disorder there can be events that trigger the old terror the individual went through due to the past abuse. So then looking at racism as people of color who continue to see acts of racism in all the various iterations, it is important to recognize how these events trigger a reminder to people of color of the bad experiences they had due to racism and because of that certain behaviors might arise or resurface.
> 
> So hearing a racial slur or racist comment can trigger memories of bad experiences blacks have had due to racism. It is easy for those who have never been done this way to make silly comments thinking they are making sense, but you aren't and you need to learn to just shut up. If you cannot present a positive to this situation, stand down and let us work with whites who want to do so instead of crying about how somebody hates all whites because they don't like a specific group of whites like you who happen to be practicing racism.
> 
> You said you have black family members, but you don't. Because if you had, you would understand things like this.
Click to expand...

LOL so words hurt blacks, are you really that weak? I call bull shit this is more proof the left has victimized you till you think everything is an attack everything is an affront, everything is racism. By the way IM2 now be VERY specific and link to me every calling you a racial slur, or for that matter any black person. Link to what you claim I have done that is racist.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised how civil our black members remain in light of all the shameless white supremacist commentary easily found daily on this forum.  Some of you lily white pansies really need to put away your popguns and try on a pair of big boy pants.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, in the above post you stated unless actual harm was done it wasn't racism, now you are claim just words by white people cause blacks harm. Are blacks so weak that words are all it takes to cause harm? Or are you, as usual using a double standard, one for whitey and one for the black members?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is this simplisrtic opinion that many whites have that is part of the problem.
> 
> Racism is more than a word used as a slur, and it causes damage that is not temporary.  Many outside of the African American or other non-white communities do not seem to understand to what extent racism can drive a person to unhealthy and societally negative behaviors. Reality dictates that emotions are involved in this matter and there is a very wide spectrum of emotions people will express in such situations.  To understand the dual standards in such thinking, white people here get all bent out of shape because I present white behavior that is documented in ther annals of American history. Using the word white has got people like you  whining about my racism, but  yet you are here talking about how blacks must be weak because of words. But white racism has been more than words. Actions detrimental to our survival have resulted after those words were spoken.
> 
> _Findings from large-scale national studies indicate that, while African Americans have a lower risk for many __anxiety __disorders, they have a 9.1% prevalence rate for PTSD, compared to 6.8% in Whites (Himle et al, 2009). That means that _*almost one in ten Black people becomes traumatized*_, and I think these rates may actually be higher since diagnosticians are usually not considering the role of racism in causing trauma (Malcoun, Williams, & Bahojb-Nouri, 2015)._
> *Dennis R. Upkins*
> 
> Racism causes PTSD. PTSD is no respecter of socioeconomic status. Rich blacks and poor blacks are suffering with PTSD as result of the racism we all must endure. Therefore, simple minded comments such as “just get over it”, “move beyond race”, and “why can’t you get past racism” is a show of just how ignorant people are to what racism entails.
> 
> So many people who are white who have never felt how racism feels when its directed to you, have sermons to preach about how one can get beyond this. But as in any other form of abuse there are things that trigger the stressors which bring back the negative experiences felt because of racism. I have a simple layman’s understanding of psychology. I am no expert on PTSD. What I have been told is that when a person has this disorder there can be events that trigger the old terror the individual went through due to the past abuse. So then looking at racism as people of color who continue to see acts of racism in all the various iterations, it is important to recognize how these events trigger a reminder to people of color of the bad experiences they had due to racism and because of that certain behaviors might arise or resurface.
> 
> So hearing a racial slur or racist comment can trigger memories of bad experiences blacks have had due to racism. It is easy for those who have never been done this way to make silly comments thinking they are making sense, but you aren't and you need to learn to just shut up. If you cannot present a positive to this situation, stand down and let us work with whites who want to do so instead of crying about how somebody hates all whites because they don't like a specific group of whites like you who happen to be practicing racism.
> 
> You said you have black family members, but you don't. Because if you had, you would understand things like this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL so words hurt blacks, are you really that weak? I call bull shit this is more proof the left has victimized you till you think everything is an attack everything is an affront, everything is racism. By the way IM2 now be VERY specific and link to me every calling you a racial slur, or for that matter any black person. Link to what you claim I have done that is racist.
Click to expand...


You seem to want to miss everything but what you want  to believe. Words stated by whites have been followed by actions enforcing those words. So the left hasn't done shit. You just can't handle the truth. And I'm not looking for anything. I am talking about white racism and you are a racist based on what you show here.


----------



## Grumblenuts

RetiredGySgt said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly, I'm surprised how civil our black members remain in light of all the shameless white supremacist commentary easily found daily on this forum.  Some of you lily white pansies really need to put away your popguns and try on a pair of big boy pants.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, in the above post you stated unless actual harm was done it wasn't racism, now you are claim just words by white people cause blacks harm.
Click to expand...

You just quoted what I actually said. If any hint of "just words by white people cause blacks harm" were actually in there it would be evident. You make zero sense.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yawn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Threats from a pussy like you who's scared of words are less than credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being offended is far different from being scared son. But since I am such a pussy, I guess that means you will engage in a discussion of white racism after slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  You don't want discussion.  You want to spew your Hate Whitey garbage and get instant, unthinking endorsement.  I don't do that.  I am not a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your fear. If citing historical fact is hate whitey, maybe whitey should not have done the things recorded.
Click to expand...

It's hilarious the way you believe I'm afraid of anything you could possibly say.  

I am not a leftist.  I don't operate solely on emotion.  

Did whitey do bad things?  Of course.  So has every other race and ethnicity...including your own.

But you can't seem to work up much outrage for any of that, can you?


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your fear son. Because your little white delusion of grandeur will be deconstructed if you chose to even try getting into such a discussion. So go on to sleep before I put you there.
> 
> 
> 
> Threats from a pussy like you who's scared of words are less than credible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being offended is far different from being scared son. But since I am such a pussy, I guess that means you will engage in a discussion of white racism after slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  You don't want discussion.  You want to spew your Hate Whitey garbage and get instant, unthinking endorsement.  I don't do that.  I am not a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your fear. If citing historical fact is hate whitey, maybe whitey should not have done the things recorded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hilarious the way you believe I'm afraid of anything you could possibly say.
> 
> I am not a leftist.  I don't operate solely on emotion.
> 
> Did whitey do bad things?  Of course.  So has every other race and ethnicity...including your own.
> 
> But you can't seem to work up much outrage for any of that, can you?
Click to expand...


I operate on fact son. You don't want to discuss the facts. No one in America has done what whitey has done. That's why you run from the conversation.


----------



## Street Juice

IM2 said:


> Many outside of the African American or other non-white communities do not seem to understand to what extent racism can drive a person to unhealthy and societally negative behaviors.



I am a white man, and I guarantee I have been the victim of racism more often than you and more severely. 

Have you ever been beaten up because of your race? I have.
Have you ever been denied a place to live because of your race? I have.
Have you ever been evicted because of your race? I have.
Have you ever been turned down for a job because of your race? I have.
Have you ever been denied entrance into a nightclub because of your race? I have.
Have you ever been charged more for goods because of your race? I have.
Have you ever paid more for an entrance ticket because of your race? I have.
Have you ever been lynched because of your race? I have. (I was being literally stoned to death with my dog at the hands of a murderous black mob on the corner of Port St and Lanvale in Baltimore and only survived thanks to the heroism of a black woman.)

So fuck you and your constant whining about white racism, you pathetic, bitter little thing. Blacks all over the world are risking their lives to move to majority white countries because blacks have it better, not worse, where whites are in charge. 

Ignorant, ungrateful, uneducated fool.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Threats from a pussy like you who's scared of words are less than credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being offended is far different from being scared son. But since I am such a pussy, I guess that means you will engage in a discussion of white racism after slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope.  You don't want discussion.  You want to spew your Hate Whitey garbage and get instant, unthinking endorsement.  I don't do that.  I am not a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your fear. If citing historical fact is hate whitey, maybe whitey should not have done the things recorded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hilarious the way you believe I'm afraid of anything you could possibly say.
> 
> I am not a leftist.  I don't operate solely on emotion.
> 
> Did whitey do bad things?  Of course.  So has every other race and ethnicity...including your own.
> 
> But you can't seem to work up much outrage for any of that, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I operate on fact son. You don't want to discuss the facts. No one in America has done what whitey has done. That's why you run from the conversation.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile, there are people _still owning human beings_ in the world.

But since they're not whitey, you don't give a shit.  

But whitey must pay, right?


----------



## IM2

Street Juice said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many outside of the African American or other non-white communities do not seem to understand to what extent racism can drive a person to unhealthy and societally negative behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a white man, and I guarantee I have been the victim of racism more often than you and more severely.
> 
> Have you ever been beaten up because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been denied a place to live because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been evicted because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been turned down for a job because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been denied entrance into a nightclub because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been charged more for goods because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever paid more for an entrance ticket because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been lynched because of your race? I have. (I was being literally stoned to death with my dog at the hands of a murderous black mob on the corner of Port St and Lanvale in Baltimore and only survived thanks to the heroism of a black woman.)
> 
> So fuck you and your constant whining about white racism, you pathetic, bitter little thing. Blacks all over the world are risking their lives to move to majority white countries because blacks have it better, not worse, where whites are in charge.
> 
> Ignorant, ungrateful, uneducated fool.
Click to expand...


You have not faced racism more than I have or more severely.  You have not faced all of the things you claim. In fact I doubt if you faced any with the exception of maybe the last one and given the racism you post here, you probably started that. Had you faced any of those things you could have filed law suits and pressed charges. So you should be a multimillionaire about right now for all the racial discrimination you say you have faced. There aren't all that many blacks leaving and moving into majority white countries. The continent of Africa has 4 times the number of people we have here and most of them aren't going anywhere.  I will be continuing to talk about white racism until it does not exist in America or until the number of racists are so small they can't get elected into office or hold any positions of responsibility. So if you don't like it, fuck you.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being offended is far different from being scared son. But since I am such a pussy, I guess that means you will engage in a discussion of white racism after slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You don't want discussion.  You want to spew your Hate Whitey garbage and get instant, unthinking endorsement.  I don't do that.  I am not a leftist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand your fear. If citing historical fact is hate whitey, maybe whitey should not have done the things recorded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hilarious the way you believe I'm afraid of anything you could possibly say.
> 
> I am not a leftist.  I don't operate solely on emotion.
> 
> Did whitey do bad things?  Of course.  So has every other race and ethnicity...including your own.
> 
> But you can't seem to work up much outrage for any of that, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I operate on fact son. You don't want to discuss the facts. No one in America has done what whitey has done. That's why you run from the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meanwhile, there are people _still owning human beings_ in the world.
> 
> But since they're not whitey, you don't give a shit.
> 
> But whitey must pay, right?
Click to expand...


Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.

You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  You don't want discussion.  You want to spew your Hate Whitey garbage and get instant, unthinking endorsement.  I don't do that.  I am not a leftist.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your fear. If citing historical fact is hate whitey, maybe whitey should not have done the things recorded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's hilarious the way you believe I'm afraid of anything you could possibly say.
> 
> I am not a leftist.  I don't operate solely on emotion.
> 
> Did whitey do bad things?  Of course.  So has every other race and ethnicity...including your own.
> 
> But you can't seem to work up much outrage for any of that, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I operate on fact son. You don't want to discuss the facts. No one in America has done what whitey has done. That's why you run from the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meanwhile, there are people _still owning human beings_ in the world.
> 
> But since they're not whitey, you don't give a shit.
> 
> But whitey must pay, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.
> 
> You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.
Click to expand...

I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.  

And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.

Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..


----------



## Grumblenuts

Street Juice said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many outside of the African American or other non-white communities do not seem to understand to what extent racism can drive a person to unhealthy and societally negative behaviors.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a white man, and I guarantee I have been the victim of racism more often than you and more severely.
> 
> Have you ever been beaten up because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been denied a place to live because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been evicted because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been turned down for a job because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been denied entrance into a nightclub because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been charged more for goods because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever paid more for an entrance ticket because of your race? I have.
> Have you ever been lynched because of your race? I have. (I was being literally stoned to death with my dog at the hands of a murderous black mob on the corner of Port St and Lanvale in Baltimore and only survived thanks to the heroism of a black woman.)
> 
> So fuck you and your constant whining about white racism, you pathetic, bitter little thing. Blacks all over the world are risking their lives to move to majority white countries because blacks have it better, not worse, where whites are in charge.
> 
> Ignorant, ungrateful, uneducated fool.
Click to expand...

Sure. Uh huh. I too have experienced Baltimore away from the harbor district. Meanwhile..


> Just over a century ago, in 1911, the Baltimore city council adopted the first residential segregation law in the country, forbidding black people from living in predominantly white neighborhoods. Though the Supreme Court ruled such policies unconstitutional seven years later, the consequences of the law, as well as the consequences of subsequent racist policies and practices like redlining, the displacement of black families, and mass incarceration remain. Today, Baltimore is one of the most segregated cities in the nation, where black residents make up a majority of the population but do worse than the average black American—*and far worse than the average white Baltimore resident*—on almost every measure of general well-being.


eta:


> on the corner of Port St and Lanvale in Baltimore


LOL. Readers check out the street view on Google.. a great hang out spot, day or night.. no doubt!)


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to accurately describe racist ideas and people is important, as anti-white racism, such as from you and im2, is so widespread. That is why is it important
> 
> 
> 
> Oh "anti-white racism" "is so widespread" now? So "important"? How about anti-black racism? Anti-woman sexism? Anti-gay bigotry? I'm sure they all just pale in comparison. Such a bundle of joy and compassion, you are.. Boggles the mind!
Click to expand...



Correct. Anti-white racism is not only legally enforced by the government, but widely accepted by society and indeed, celebrated by it.

EVERY major institution in this country, has stated policies and programs of increasing minority hiring and promotion, whether out of genuine desire to make up for past disadvantages or just to avoid being sued for an accusation of perceived under representation.


If you have a policy of giving preferential treatment to one group, in hiring and promotions, lets say, hypothetically speaking, *blacks*, then you by the concept of SIMPLE SUBTRACTION, you have to give less of that to other groups, lets say hypothetically speaking, *whites*.


Your denial of this simple and painfully obvious fact, is you being  completely and blindly ideologically indoctrinated past the ability to think.



The desire of people like you and IM2, to deny us the ability to speak of anti-white racism, or black racists, is because on some level you know this to be true, and that the only way you can win the Contest of Ideas, is by suppressing the arguments of your opponents.


That is why this is important. This is the first line of defense of absolutely insanely bad liberal policies that any sane world would have shit canned decades ago.


----------



## Correll

Bo Didleysquat said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to accurately describe racist ideas and people is important, as anti-white racism, such as from you and im2, is so widespread. That is why is it important
> 
> 
> 
> Oh "anti-white racism" "is so widespread" now? So "important"? How about anti-black racism? Anti-woman sexism? Anti-gay bigotry? I'm sure they all just pale in comparison. Such a bundle of joy and compassion, you are.. Boggles the mind!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White male fragility syndrome is quite widespread.  Note the shrill victimy moans of the white males who bought into the glory of American style capitalism only to have their livelihoods outsourced to communists by the capitalists they trusted.  Now we're all shocked at the locally empty shelves we used to scoff at in other countries we attacked with sanctions and blockades we placed at the behest of our capitalists.
> 
> Didn't happen overnight, did indeed happen bipaertisanly.  It's a bit to digest and confront if one has not been paying attention for decades I suppose.
Click to expand...



1. The "shrill" tone is in your head, you faggot. This is a political discussion forum. That we white males are here expressing our disagreement with your lefty policies is the idea (as is the reverse). That you would cast shade on us for it, is just you being an asshole.

2. The debate on Globalism/Free Trade vs America First, was the whole point of Trump's primary campaign. Did you really miss that? The Right is not a hive mind like you lefties. There are different voices because different people have different ideas. I know that is beyond your comprehension, so  I don't know why I even put it in there.


3. The Capitalists are not the ones who push for sanctions. The capitalists have, as a group, bought into the idea of Globalism and Free Trade, decades ago.

4. You are the one that has obviously not been paying attention. Hint: Read up on the Trump primary campaign. NOt from lefty sites, from pro-trump ones.


----------



## katsteve2012

daveman said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.
> 
> I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.
Click to expand...


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

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

That is some childish, petty bullshit.

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> we white males are here


Meaning you still statistically far advantaged crybabies? Sorry, white and male here, but all grown up. Now put your pants on and quit playing with that orange Matchbox toy.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, if I was to say something about blacks and fried chicken, you would say I'm a racist with no hesitation, without even ascertaining whether or not I think blacks are inferior, would you not?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You're communicating a racial slur or stereotype, but further context is required to conclude one is "racist" else the term is simply superfluous. As IM2 has stated, some form of abuse has to be evident. Actual harm must be detectable. When blacks refer to one another as "nigga" it's all in good fun. Supremacist whites doing it to express their shared belief of superiority is the opposite. To put or keep blacks in their place. Abuse and harm clearly intended. Chris Rock using racial stereotypes in an effort to help us all laugh together at ourselves is not being racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites eat fried chicken, whites have made millions off fried chicken franchises and in the farming, processing and distribution of chickens, so to talk about blacks and chicken is portraying a racist stereotype that needs to stop.
Click to expand...


What is the harm to you, of stating that "blacks like fried chicken"?


After all, that is the standard you and Grumble are pushing.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> we white males are here
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning you still statistically far advantaged crybabies? Sorry, white and male here, but all grown up. Now put your pants on and quit playing with that orange Matchbox toy.
Click to expand...



Wow. That was insanely cowardly of you to cut EVERYTHING from my post and then address an out of context phrase and strawman it. 


That is the type of thing one does, when one knows he has lost the argument, but refuses to admit it.


My point was that the other poster was attacking us, "white males" for expressing disagreements. On a political discussion forum.


That was stupid when the other poster did it, and it is just as stupid for you to do it now.


Try to have some self respect. Do you even know what you just made yourself look like?


----------



## katsteve2012

Grumblenuts said:


> Frankly, I'm surprised how civil our black members remain in light of all the shameless white supremacist commentary easily found daily on this forum.  Some of you lily white pansies really need to put away your popguns and try on a pair of big boy pants.



Forums like this one are a dime a dozen. This particular one just seems to have more of an appeal to a radical fringe more so than others.

It is where some of them congregate to express their frustration at what they perceive to be a societal assault upon them by minorities(blacks specifically) who  they believe are aligned with liberal whites in a conspiracy to "disenfranchise" them.

Black posters are a small minority here, so of course, of the few who are here, most of us observe more than speak and actually view this forum as a free glimpse from a distance into the psychosis of the fragile mentality of SOME in the majority.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore, if I was to say something about blacks and fried chicken, you would say I'm a racist with no hesitation, without even ascertaining whether or not I think blacks are inferior, would you not?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not. You're communicating a racial slur or stereotype, but further context is required to conclude one is "racist" else the term is simply superfluous. As IM2 has stated, some form of abuse has to be evident. Actual harm must be detectable. When blacks refer to one another as "nigga" it's all in good fun. Supremacist whites doing it to express their shared belief of superiority is the opposite. To put or keep blacks in their place. Abuse and harm clearly intended. Chris Rock using racial stereotypes in an effort to help us all laugh together at ourselves is not being racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whites eat fried chicken, whites have made millions off fried chicken franchises and in the farming, processing and distribution of chickens, so to talk about blacks and chicken is portraying a racist stereotype that needs to stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is the harm to you, of stating that "blacks like fried chicken"?
> 
> 
> After all, that is the standard you and Grumble are pushing.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure who exactly IM2 was addressing here. If it was me he was addressing, I didn't say anything about blacks and fried chicken. I simply used that as an example that IF I was to say something about blacks and fried chicken, I would likely be considered racist.

Or he may have been correcting Grumblefish. I wasn't sure so I just decided to say nothing.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to accurately describe racist ideas and people is important, as anti-white racism, such as from you and im2, is so widespread. That is why is it important
> 
> 
> 
> Oh "anti-white racism" "is so widespread" now? So "important"? How about anti-black racism? Anti-woman sexism? Anti-gay bigotry? I'm sure they all just pale in comparison. Such a bundle of joy and compassion, you are.. Boggles the mind!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Anti-white racism is not only legally enforced by the government, but widely accepted by society and indeed, celebrated by it.
> 
> EVERY major institution in this country, has stated policies and programs of increasing minority hiring and promotion, whether out of genuine desire to make up for past disadvantages or just to avoid being sued for an accusation of perceived under representation.
> 
> 
> If you have a policy of giving preferential treatment to one group, in hiring and promotions, lets say, hypothetically speaking, *blacks*, then you by the concept of SIMPLE SUBTRACTION, you have to give less of that to other groups, lets say hypothetically speaking, *whites*.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this simple and painfully obvious fact, is you being  completely and blindly ideologically indoctrinated past the ability to think.
Click to expand...

Face it, you're either a completely disingenuous idiot or just an idiot. Striving for nationwide demographic equality is not racism. It's attempting to level the playing field so that all can enjoy roughly equal security and access to our nation's bounty. It's a predictably messy, inexact science, but obviously beats the alternative which is to ignore the gross inequality and keep pretending all is swell. Yes, some have to make do with less than that to which they have grown accustomed so that others may have enough. You'll just have pull yourself up by your goddamned bootstraps and get over it. The end result will be a far happier, more productive society.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did.
> 
> For you to question my personal preferences as far as television shows, truly makes you someone who clearly has too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession.
> 
> 
> IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.
> 
> 
> If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are.
> 
> 
> They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.
> 
> 
> I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews.
> 
> 
> Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.
> 
> 
> If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews.
> 
> 
> So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.
> 
> The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL  civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.
> 
> In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to  judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.
> 
> 
> Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> IT IS NOT THE SHOW. IT IS THAT AMERICA AS A WHOLE ACCEPTED IT'S PORTRAYAL OF THE SYMBOLS AS HARMLESS AND NOT RACIST.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was accepting. Since then, you lefties have grown in power and intolerance and become more aggressive in The Culture War. But what happened in the more recent past, does not change the historical record of over 150 years of acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.
> 
> This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly  entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.
> 
> I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot of people. But more to the point, none of them, AND none of those that did not watch the show, seemed to have any problem with the depiction of the symbols as harmless regional pride.
> 
> I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.
> 
> But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America,  no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Try again without the spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned  with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.
> 
> That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".
> 
> Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do when they are an assault on my views and my heritage and my interests. Or, "or".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.
> 
> I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you admit that the people of the 1980s, who endorsed the celebration of the symbols of the Confederate Flag and The General Lee,
> 
> were doing so, in their view, as harmless symbols of regional pride, and thus for you to judge them, or treat them as though they were celebrating those symbols as though they agreed with YOU, that they were symbols of racism,
> 
> 
> would be wrong of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One last time. S L O W L Y. Before I depart from this silly circular argument that you are so intent on engaging in:
> 
> 
> 1.  I do not care if YOU or anyone else sees your Confederate flag as a "harmless symbol of regional pride that has stood for 150 years".
> 
> I witnessed it being present in the hands of racist, anti civil rights scum in the early 1960's. In case you did not realize it, the 1960's were LESS than 60  years ago. So you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me that most of the country has viewed  it  as "harmless" for that length of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you give those relatively few racists what they want ie the power to co-opt those symbols for their purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I will not admit to something that I disagree with for the sake of making you comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But on what grounds can you disagree with me? The evidence from the show is clear, good clean fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I am not "incorrect" in my view of what your so called "positions" revolve around. It is obvious that anything that you remotely perceive as not being aligned with your extremely radical, far  right, pro white agenda, you consider to be an assault on ALL white people, as a self proclaimed spokesperson for that demographic, evidenced by your attempt to lecture me on a topic that you have no understanding of or experience with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding and experience is just as valid as your own. We live in an insane world, were you can say something like, "your views are invalid because you are white", and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Your insistence on labeling others who do not agree with your views as "lefties" is a tactic that you default to in nearly every thread that I've seen you present in. And then after that, you progress to "race baiting asshole" as your next level of defense. Which is exactly why I normally don't respond to much of what you have to say.
> 
> Most rabidly political zealots of any kind are normally impossible to reason with.  And I usually don't waste valuable time attempting to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For a number of posts in a row, you've managed to be relatively civil and actually address the topic and my points, seriously and I believe, honesty.
> 
> 
> Note how I have replied in kind.
> 
> 
> I treat people with the level of respect they show me. When you see me calling people "lefties" or "race baiting assholes" it is because they have taken the discussion to that level.
> 
> 
> If you withdraw from the conversation at this point, it is not because I have been rude to you. I have not. So, don't kid yourself with that excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore I am agreeing to disagree and you are entitled to your views, but realize that you are nowhere near informed enough and lack the life experience to be critical of mine.
> 
> View attachment 313841
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, all you have to refute my many cited examples, from the BLue and Grey Reunion, to the Dukes of Hazzard, to Obama sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial,
> 
> 
> is that I am white, and thus my views can be discounted.
Click to expand...



Again, for the 100th  time. I personally do not care what race you are, nor do I personally care what your PERSONAL  perception of the Confederate flag is. That is your right. To view it as you wish.....based on YOUR experience. As it is mine. to view it as I do.

My difference of opinion from yours is mainly generational and part geographical.

What you continue to sidestep is that since you ARE white, you NEVER were part of a demographic that was denied the most  basic of civil rights, and you NEVER witnessed your own family having human waste thrown on them by "people" WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS for peacefully demonstrating.

Unlike you, to me that so called "symbol of regional pride" represents a culture that could return if given enough acceptance, and is not harmless in my view.

A swastika could just as easily be viewed  as a harmless symbol as well....by certain people.

You are futilely  attempting to make a point to the wrong person on this subject.

I agreed to disagree.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to accurately describe racist ideas and people is important, as anti-white racism, such as from you and im2, is so widespread. That is why is it important
> 
> 
> 
> Oh "anti-white racism" "is so widespread" now? So "important"? How about anti-black racism? Anti-woman sexism? Anti-gay bigotry? I'm sure they all just pale in comparison. Such a bundle of joy and compassion, you are.. Boggles the mind!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Anti-white racism is not only legally enforced by the government, but widely accepted by society and indeed, celebrated by it.
> 
> EVERY major institution in this country, has stated policies and programs of increasing minority hiring and promotion, whether out of genuine desire to make up for past disadvantages or just to avoid being sued for an accusation of perceived under representation.
> 
> 
> If you have a policy of giving preferential treatment to one group, in hiring and promotions, lets say, hypothetically speaking, *blacks*, then you by the concept of SIMPLE SUBTRACTION, you have to give less of that to other groups, lets say hypothetically speaking, *whites*.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this simple and painfully obvious fact, is you being  completely and blindly ideologically indoctrinated past the ability to think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face it, you're either a completely disingenuous idiot or just an idiot. Striving for nationwide demographic equality is not racism. It's attempting to level the playing field so that all can enjoy roughly equal security and access to our nation's bounty. It's a predictably messy, inexact science, but obviously beats the alternative which is to ignore the gross inequality and keep pretending all is swell. Yes, some have to make do with less than that to which they have grown accustomed so that others may have enough. You'll just have pull yourself up by your goddamned bootstraps and get over it. The end result will be a far happier, more productive society.
Click to expand...



1. "striving" for equal outcomes, while ignoring unequal accomplishments, requires discrimination. Racist discrimination.You are supporting systemic, universal , government enforced racism.


2. It is not about having "less than I have grown accustomed to" but NOT HAVING EQUAL TREATMENT AND RIGHTS, you pompous and racist ass.


3. The end will not be a "happier society".  More and more, the largest single ethnic group is growing more and more resentful of being discriminated against and oppressed. All the while people like you and IM2, are encouraging in minorities an expectation of ever increasing Privilege (in the medieval sense of the word). THat is not a recipe for a "happy and productive society" but for one torn apart by racial tribalism and eventually violence.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is that the symbol(s) represent racism and slavery and secession.
> 
> 
> IN a society, where the symbols have, at least until recently, been widely accepted, as demonstrated by my example of the Dukes of Hazzard, this is not a "petty" point.
> 
> 
> If you are correct, then we live in a society, where until very recently extremely racist symbols, and thus, the racism they symbolize was widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> If I am correct, then we live in a society where, until very recently, symbols of regional pride, and thus the regional pride they symbolize were widely accepted and celebrated.
> 
> 
> My use of the show, to examine this point, is brilliant. You should read the reviews. They are a window into the people who liked the show and what they were and who they are.
> 
> 
> They are not racist or bad people, as would be expected, in your world.
> 
> 
> I am going out on a limb in saying this, btw, I only looked at the first 5 or 6 reviews.
> 
> 
> Maybe if you read them all you can find that further down, the vast majority are from Evul White Men who loved the public celebration of Evul Racism, for the Evulness of it all., or something like that that would support your world view.
> 
> 
> If you find that, you could really crush me. If you are confident in your worldview, I would think that you would expect to find a good deal of that, in the reviews.
> 
> 
> So, are you going to look? Or do you prefer to just make assumptions about people you don't know, and don't like?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.
> 
> The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL  civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.
> 
> In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to  judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.
> 
> 
> Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *
> IT IS NOT THE SHOW. IT IS THAT AMERICA AS A WHOLE ACCEPTED IT'S PORTRAYAL OF THE SYMBOLS AS HARMLESS AND NOT RACIST.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was accepting. Since then, you lefties have grown in power and intolerance and become more aggressive in The Culture War. But what happened in the more recent past, does not change the historical record of over 150 years of acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.
> 
> This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly  entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.
> 
> I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot of people. But more to the point, none of them, AND none of those that did not watch the show, seemed to have any problem with the depiction of the symbols as harmless regional pride.
> 
> I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.
> 
> But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America,  no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Try again without the spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned  with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.
> 
> That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".
> 
> Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do when they are an assault on my views and my heritage and my interests. Or, "or".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.
> 
> I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you admit that the people of the 1980s, who endorsed the celebration of the symbols of the Confederate Flag and The General Lee,
> 
> were doing so, in their view, as harmless symbols of regional pride, and thus for you to judge them, or treat them as though they were celebrating those symbols as though they agreed with YOU, that they were symbols of racism,
> 
> 
> would be wrong of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One last time. S L O W L Y. Before I depart from this silly circular argument that you are so intent on engaging in:
> 
> 
> 1.  I do not care if YOU or anyone else sees your Confederate flag as a "harmless symbol of regional pride that has stood for 150 years".
> 
> I witnessed it being present in the hands of racist, anti civil rights scum in the early 1960's. In case you did not realize it, the 1960's were LESS than 60  years ago. So you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me that most of the country has viewed  it  as "harmless" for that length of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you give those relatively few racists what they want ie the power to co-opt those symbols for their purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I will not admit to something that I disagree with for the sake of making you comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But on what grounds can you disagree with me? The evidence from the show is clear, good clean fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I am not "incorrect" in my view of what your so called "positions" revolve around. It is obvious that anything that you remotely perceive as not being aligned with your extremely radical, far  right, pro white agenda, you consider to be an assault on ALL white people, as a self proclaimed spokesperson for that demographic, evidenced by your attempt to lecture me on a topic that you have no understanding of or experience with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding and experience is just as valid as your own. We live in an insane world, were you can say something like, "your views are invalid because you are white", and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Your insistence on labeling others who do not agree with your views as "lefties" is a tactic that you default to in nearly every thread that I've seen you present in. And then after that, you progress to "race baiting asshole" as your next level of defense. Which is exactly why I normally don't respond to much of what you have to say.
> 
> Most rabidly political zealots of any kind are normally impossible to reason with.  And I usually don't waste valuable time attempting to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For a number of posts in a row, you've managed to be relatively civil and actually address the topic and my points, seriously and I believe, honesty.
> 
> 
> Note how I have replied in kind.
> 
> 
> I treat people with the level of respect they show me. When you see me calling people "lefties" or "race baiting assholes" it is because they have taken the discussion to that level.
> 
> 
> If you withdraw from the conversation at this point, it is not because I have been rude to you. I have not. So, don't kid yourself with that excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore I am agreeing to disagree and you are entitled to your views, but realize that you are nowhere near informed enough and lack the life experience to be critical of mine.
> 
> View attachment 313841
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, all you have to refute my many cited examples, from the BLue and Grey Reunion, to the Dukes of Hazzard, to Obama sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial,
> 
> 
> is that I am white, and thus my views can be discounted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the 100th  time. I personally do not care what race you are, nor do I personally care what your PERSONAL  perception of the Confederate flag is.
> 
> My difference of opinion from yours is mainly generational and part geographical.
> 
> What you continue to sidestep is that since you ARE white, you NEVER were part of a demographic that was denied the most  basic of civil rights, and you NEVER witnessed your own family having human waste thrown on them by "people" WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS for peacefully demonstrating.
> 
> Unlike you, to me that so called "symbol of regional pride" represents a culture that could return if given enough acceptance, and is not harmless in my view.
> 
> A swastika could just as easily be viewed  as a harmless symbol as well....by certain people.
> 
> You are futilely  attempting to make a point to the wrong person on this subject.
> 
> I agreed to disagree.
> 
> Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Click to expand...




1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.

2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.

3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours. 

4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs? 

5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> More and more, the largest single ethnic group is growing more and more resentful of being discriminated against and oppressed.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> [....QUOTE]
> 
> 
> Yep. And yet you want equal outcome, despite a massive education gap.
> 
> So, how you going to do that?
> 
> By discriminating in favor of blacks, at the expense of whites.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My "position" is one of someone who did not just read in passing in an old history book about symbols of oppression. I actually saw them in effect as realities, unlike you.
> 
> The same filthy animals that threw urine and feces on my parents at a PEACEFUL  civil rights march down south in the 60's were waving confederate flags.
> 
> In the context of historic timelines, it was not that long ago that I experienced what I did, so for you to speculate about and then attempt to  judge what MY perception is of something that was offensive to ME and many others in an environment that you did not experience during a time when you were not even born is not "brilliant" by any means.
> 
> 
> Using a television show, that I did not watch nor had an interest in as a means to justify your defense of this symbol is nothing more than you expressing your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *
> IT IS NOT THE SHOW. IT IS THAT AMERICA AS A WHOLE ACCEPTED IT'S PORTRAYAL OF THE SYMBOLS AS HARMLESS AND NOT RACIST.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If "everyone in America" was as accepting as you claim of the "symbol" that you are so determined to defend as "harmless" the independent networks would still be running syndicated episodes of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was accepting. Since then, you lefties have grown in power and intolerance and become more aggressive in The Culture War. But what happened in the more recent past, does not change the historical record of over 150 years of acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But obviously there were enough people who resented the shows use of a Confederate flag caricature to prompt even reruns of the show to be cancelled.
> 
> This is just you defending what you casually view as a symbol of "regional pride", which you are certainly  entitled to do, just as I am entitled as many others are to view it as I do.
> 
> I read your cut and pasted reviews of the show, and like any other show, it had a following by a certain audience, and also,like any other show, it appealed to SOME people, but not ALL people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot of people. But more to the point, none of them, AND none of those that did not watch the show, seemed to have any problem with the depiction of the symbols as harmless regional pride.
> 
> I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.
> 
> But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By your own admission, your views and platform of reasoning revolves around defending everything that you believe to be related to the values of white society in America,  no matter what.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Try again without the spin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it also appears that anyone who has self interests based on their life experiences that are not aligned  with your views, you seem to perceive as a threat to your defense of what you believe in.
> 
> That is what I am referring to as being "small and petty".
> 
> Your belief system is yours to support, however you are in no position to judge my life experiences and beliefs, or those of others as an assault upon yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I do when they are an assault on my views and my heritage and my interests. Or, "or".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with me "making assumptions about people that I don't know of dislike" as you claim.
> 
> I do not have any emotional investment to contribute towards "liking or disliking" complete strangers whose beliefs happen to be different than mine, but I do reserve the right to not share their views for my own reasons.
> 
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/life...ukes-of-hazzard-yanked-from-tv-land/29571785/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you admit that the people of the 1980s, who endorsed the celebration of the symbols of the Confederate Flag and The General Lee,
> 
> were doing so, in their view, as harmless symbols of regional pride, and thus for you to judge them, or treat them as though they were celebrating those symbols as though they agreed with YOU, that they were symbols of racism,
> 
> 
> would be wrong of you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One last time. S L O W L Y. Before I depart from this silly circular argument that you are so intent on engaging in:
> 
> 
> 1.  I do not care if YOU or anyone else sees your Confederate flag as a "harmless symbol of regional pride that has stood for 150 years".
> 
> I witnessed it being present in the hands of racist, anti civil rights scum in the early 1960's. In case you did not realize it, the 1960's were LESS than 60  years ago. So you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me that most of the country has viewed  it  as "harmless" for that length of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you give those relatively few racists what they want ie the power to co-opt those symbols for their purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I will not admit to something that I disagree with for the sake of making you comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But on what grounds can you disagree with me? The evidence from the show is clear, good clean fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I am not "incorrect" in my view of what your so called "positions" revolve around. It is obvious that anything that you remotely perceive as not being aligned with your extremely radical, far  right, pro white agenda, you consider to be an assault on ALL white people, as a self proclaimed spokesperson for that demographic, evidenced by your attempt to lecture me on a topic that you have no understanding of or experience with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding and experience is just as valid as your own. We live in an insane world, were you can say something like, "your views are invalid because you are white", and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Your insistence on labeling others who do not agree with your views as "lefties" is a tactic that you default to in nearly every thread that I've seen you present in. And then after that, you progress to "race baiting asshole" as your next level of defense. Which is exactly why I normally don't respond to much of what you have to say.
> 
> Most rabidly political zealots of any kind are normally impossible to reason with.  And I usually don't waste valuable time attempting to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For a number of posts in a row, you've managed to be relatively civil and actually address the topic and my points, seriously and I believe, honesty.
> 
> 
> Note how I have replied in kind.
> 
> 
> I treat people with the level of respect they show me. When you see me calling people "lefties" or "race baiting assholes" it is because they have taken the discussion to that level.
> 
> 
> If you withdraw from the conversation at this point, it is not because I have been rude to you. I have not. So, don't kid yourself with that excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore I am agreeing to disagree and you are entitled to your views, but realize that you are nowhere near informed enough and lack the life experience to be critical of mine.
> 
> View attachment 313841
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, all you have to refute my many cited examples, from the BLue and Grey Reunion, to the Dukes of Hazzard, to Obama sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial,
> 
> 
> is that I am white, and thus my views can be discounted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the 100th  time. I personally do not care what race you are, nor do I personally care what your PERSONAL  perception of the Confederate flag is.
> 
> My difference of opinion from yours is mainly generational and part geographical.
> 
> What you continue to sidestep is that since you ARE white, you NEVER were part of a demographic that was denied the most  basic of civil rights, and you NEVER witnessed your own family having human waste thrown on them by "people" WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS for peacefully demonstrating.
> 
> Unlike you, to me that so called "symbol of regional pride" represents a culture that could return if given enough acceptance, and is not harmless in my view.
> 
> A swastika could just as easily be viewed  as a harmless symbol as well....by certain people.
> 
> You are futilely  attempting to make a point to the wrong person on this subject.
> 
> I agreed to disagree.
> 
> Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.
> 
> 2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs?
> 
> 5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?
Click to expand...


Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.

That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.

Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.

There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.

You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.

Did you personally fight in the war as a Union vet?

Did I I personally witness what I did actually  seeing the Confederate flag as an oppressive symbol?

Yes.

As far as banning Confederate statues and flags, I live in a region where they are not present, so it does not matter to me at all. One way or another.

As far as "attacking white people", that is totally ridiculous. There are numerous white people who object to those symbols as well, and  as far as ME "personally attacking white people", that is absurd.

I have white in laws who have stayed in MY home, been given money by ME and had numerous favors done for them by me with no strings attached, so don't even talk to me about "attacking white people". I have directly helped far more than I have hurt.

I think that somewhere in your amplified belief that white people are being discriminated against on a "massive" scale, that you silently wish for a return to legal discrimination by whites against "me and my own".

Which is fine. That's mainly why I visit this forum. It is to gain more perspective on what SOME of  the angry fringe of society actually believe.


 Vigilance and awareness is always a safe practice.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand your fear. If citing historical fact is hate whitey, maybe whitey should not have done the things recorded.
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious the way you believe I'm afraid of anything you could possibly say.
> 
> I am not a leftist.  I don't operate solely on emotion.
> 
> Did whitey do bad things?  Of course.  So has every other race and ethnicity...including your own.
> 
> But you can't seem to work up much outrage for any of that, can you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I operate on fact son. You don't want to discuss the facts. No one in America has done what whitey has done. That's why you run from the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meanwhile, there are people _still owning human beings_ in the world.
> 
> But since they're not whitey, you don't give a shit.
> 
> But whitey must pay, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.
> 
> You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> More and more, the largest single ethnic group is growing more and more resentful of being discriminated against and oppressed.
Click to expand...


And once again you cut nearly everything from the post, to select out an out of context fragment to strawman.


That is, again, the type of tactic used by people who know they have lost the debate.


Here are my points, which you were unable to even address, and too cowardly to be honest about that.




1. "striving" for equal outcomes, while ignoring unequal accomplishments, requires discrimination. Racist discrimination.You are supporting systemic, universal , government enforced racism.


2. It is not about having "less than I have grown accustomed to" but NOT HAVING EQUAL TREATMENT AND RIGHTS, you pompous and racist ass.


3. The end will not be a "happier society". More and more, the largest single ethnic group is growing more and more resentful of being discriminated against and oppressed. All the while people like you and IM2, are encouraging in minorities an expectation of ever increasing Privilege (in the medieval sense of the word). THat is not a recipe for a "happy and productive society" but for one torn apart by racial tribalism and eventually violence.


----------



## Grumblenuts

katsteve2012 said:


> Vigilance and awareness is always a safe practice.





> _“*Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.* The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”_


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> *IT IS NOT THE SHOW. IT IS THAT AMERICA AS A WHOLE ACCEPTED IT'S PORTRAYAL OF THE SYMBOLS AS HARMLESS AND NOT RACIST.*
> 
> Was accepting. Since then, you lefties have grown in power and intolerance and become more aggressive in The Culture War. But what happened in the more recent past, does not change the historical record of over 150 years of acceptance.
> 
> 
> 
> Quite a lot of people. But more to the point, none of them, AND none of those that did not watch the show, seemed to have any problem with the depiction of the symbols as harmless regional pride.
> 
> I looked. I was hoping to find some report of some small group that made a fuss and was ignored, and/or laughed at.
> 
> But I could find NOTHING. Not one peep.
> 
> 
> 
> Incorrect. Try again without the spin.
> 
> 
> 
> I do when they are an assault on my views and my heritage and my interests. Or, "or".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you admit that the people of the 1980s, who endorsed the celebration of the symbols of the Confederate Flag and The General Lee,
> 
> were doing so, in their view, as harmless symbols of regional pride, and thus for you to judge them, or treat them as though they were celebrating those symbols as though they agreed with YOU, that they were symbols of racism,
> 
> 
> would be wrong of you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One last time. S L O W L Y. Before I depart from this silly circular argument that you are so intent on engaging in:
> 
> 
> 1.  I do not care if YOU or anyone else sees your Confederate flag as a "harmless symbol of regional pride that has stood for 150 years".
> 
> I witnessed it being present in the hands of racist, anti civil rights scum in the early 1960's. In case you did not realize it, the 1960's were LESS than 60  years ago. So you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me that most of the country has viewed  it  as "harmless" for that length of time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you give those relatively few racists what they want ie the power to co-opt those symbols for their purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I will not admit to something that I disagree with for the sake of making you comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But on what grounds can you disagree with me? The evidence from the show is clear, good clean fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I am not "incorrect" in my view of what your so called "positions" revolve around. It is obvious that anything that you remotely perceive as not being aligned with your extremely radical, far  right, pro white agenda, you consider to be an assault on ALL white people, as a self proclaimed spokesperson for that demographic, evidenced by your attempt to lecture me on a topic that you have no understanding of or experience with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding and experience is just as valid as your own. We live in an insane world, were you can say something like, "your views are invalid because you are white", and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Your insistence on labeling others who do not agree with your views as "lefties" is a tactic that you default to in nearly every thread that I've seen you present in. And then after that, you progress to "race baiting asshole" as your next level of defense. Which is exactly why I normally don't respond to much of what you have to say.
> 
> Most rabidly political zealots of any kind are normally impossible to reason with.  And I usually don't waste valuable time attempting to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For a number of posts in a row, you've managed to be relatively civil and actually address the topic and my points, seriously and I believe, honesty.
> 
> 
> Note how I have replied in kind.
> 
> 
> I treat people with the level of respect they show me. When you see me calling people "lefties" or "race baiting assholes" it is because they have taken the discussion to that level.
> 
> 
> If you withdraw from the conversation at this point, it is not because I have been rude to you. I have not. So, don't kid yourself with that excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore I am agreeing to disagree and you are entitled to your views, but realize that you are nowhere near informed enough and lack the life experience to be critical of mine.
> 
> View attachment 313841
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, all you have to refute my many cited examples, from the BLue and Grey Reunion, to the Dukes of Hazzard, to Obama sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial,
> 
> 
> is that I am white, and thus my views can be discounted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the 100th  time. I personally do not care what race you are, nor do I personally care what your PERSONAL  perception of the Confederate flag is.
> 
> My difference of opinion from yours is mainly generational and part geographical.
> 
> What you continue to sidestep is that since you ARE white, you NEVER were part of a demographic that was denied the most  basic of civil rights, and you NEVER witnessed your own family having human waste thrown on them by "people" WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS for peacefully demonstrating.
> 
> Unlike you, to me that so called "symbol of regional pride" represents a culture that could return if given enough acceptance, and is not harmless in my view.
> 
> A swastika could just as easily be viewed  as a harmless symbol as well....by certain people.
> 
> You are futilely  attempting to make a point to the wrong person on this subject.
> 
> I agreed to disagree.
> 
> Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.
> 
> 2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs?
> 
> 5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
Click to expand...



And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.


Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.


I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South. 


Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilance and awareness is always a safe practice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _“*Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty; power is ever stealing from the many to the few.* The manna of popular liberty must be gathered each day or it is rotten. The living sap of today outgrows the dead rind of yesterday. The hand entrusted with power becomes, either from human depravity or esprit de corps, the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continued oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot; only by unintermitted agitation can a people be sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.”_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Calling people racist for celebrating regional pride in a manner you don't like, is not fighting against tyranny, it is just you ginning up an excuse to demonize and marginalize people you don't like.


The more of an air of moral superiority spin you put on it, as you push people around for no reason, the more pissed off you will make them and the MORE that your idea of this being a path to a "happier and more productive" society,


is even more of a suicidal delusion.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Oh, have a tissue. I really do appreciate every crazy gem you share here, Correll. Provided the right sort of stimulus.. I just can't help cracking myself up at times. OMG, comedy gold!


Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> More and more, the largest single ethnic group is growing more and more resentful of being discriminated against and oppressed.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Oh, have a tissue. I really do appreciate every crazy gem you share here, Correll. Provided the right sort of stimulus.. I just can't help cracking myself up at times. OMG, comedy gold!
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> More and more, the largest single ethnic group is growing more and more resentful of being discriminated against and oppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



And yet, you have to cut the vast majority of my posts, to hide my point, when you "reply".


That is not the action of someone laughing at someone else's stupidity.


That is the type of thing you do, when you know that you have lost the debate, but are too dishonest to admit it.



You posted graph showing a gap in college degrees between whites and blacks. Yet you call for equal outcomes.



If blacks are less qualified, due to having less education, then getting equal outcomes can only be done by discriminating against more qualified whites AND will end up with less qualified people doing the jobs.



So, what are you going to NOT cut and how are you going to spin it, to pretend that I did not just prove that you support racism discrimination against whites?


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
Click to expand...


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


----------



## daveman

katsteve2012 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.
> 
> I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT has nothing to do with anyone being on the "left, right or middle", and you know it.
> 
> It is you attempting to persuade another poster to say something against a poster that you disagree with in order to defend yet  another poster that you are obviously in agreement with.
> 
> That is some childish, petty bullshit.
> 
> I dont see you "chastising" anyone who you think is on the so called called "right", so work on your own  hypocrisy, and consider finding a new "hobby"
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's hilarious the way you believe I'm afraid of anything you could possibly say.
> 
> I am not a leftist.  I don't operate solely on emotion.
> 
> Did whitey do bad things?  Of course.  So has every other race and ethnicity...including your own.
> 
> But you can't seem to work up much outrage for any of that, can you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I operate on fact son. You don't want to discuss the facts. No one in America has done what whitey has done. That's why you run from the conversation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meanwhile, there are people _still owning human beings_ in the world.
> 
> But since they're not whitey, you don't give a shit.
> 
> But whitey must pay, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.
> 
> You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
Click to expand...

You're retarded.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
Click to expand...



Do you consider yourself to be an American?


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
Click to expand...

You said something right for a change.

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

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> If blacks are less qualified, due to having less education, then getting equal outcomes can only be done by discriminating against more qualified whites AND will end up with less qualified people doing the jobs.


OMG, at long last! You've made a stab at substantive argument! Well, sorry, given one group starts out less educated than another, then to achieve equality the obvious solution is to have the advantaged group help the disadvantaged group catch up. Now get busy. Crying won't help you. Crying won't do you no good..


----------



## Faun

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If blacks are less qualified, due to having less education, then getting equal outcomes can only be done by discriminating against more qualified whites AND will end up with less qualified people doing the jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, at long last! You've made a stab at substantive argument! Well, sorry, given one group starts out less educated than another, then to achieve equality the obvious solution is to have the advantaged group help the disadvantaged group catch up. Now get busy. Crying won't help you. Crying won't do you no good..
Click to expand...



1. Dude. I'v been nothing but substance. Which is why you've been cutting my posts down to nothing. To hide that.

2. It is not that "one group starts out with less education" it is that one group consistently under performs in education, despite decades of efforts on the problem by the "advantaged group".

3. My point remains. To get the equal outcomes you demand, given the education gap, requires anti-white discrimination. AND results in less qualified people doing the jobs. Your policy position is one of racist discrimination and oppression. That is the reality of what you are demanding. And we see it in the real world, all the time.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I operate on fact son. You don't want to discuss the facts. No one in America has done what whitey has done. That's why you run from the conversation.
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, there are people _still owning human beings_ in the world.
> 
> But since they're not whitey, you don't give a shit.
> 
> But whitey must pay, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.
> 
> You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, there are people _still owning human beings_ in the world.
> 
> But since they're not whitey, you don't give a shit.
> 
> But whitey must pay, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.
> 
> You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
Click to expand...


You say you want to discuss a case, but you talk and talk shit, and post nothing on the case. Did you think that no one would notice?


So, what year was it? 1866? 1867?


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If blacks are less qualified, due to having less education, then getting equal outcomes can only be done by discriminating against more qualified whites AND will end up with less qualified people doing the jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, at long last! You've made a stab at substantive argument! Well, sorry, given one group starts out less educated than another, then to achieve equality the obvious solution is to have the advantaged group help the disadvantaged group catch up. Now get busy. Crying won't help you. Crying won't do you no good..
Click to expand...


Damn grumble, that was awesome.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> If blacks are less qualified, due to having less education, then getting equal outcomes can only be done by discriminating against more qualified whites AND will end up with less qualified people doing the jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, at long last! You've made a stab at substantive argument! Well, sorry, given one group starts out less educated than another, then to achieve equality the obvious solution is to have the advantaged group help the disadvantaged group catch up. Now get busy. Crying won't help you. Crying won't do you no good..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Damn grumble, that was awesome.
Click to expand...




It is retarded. He says "help" ignoring that we as a society have been fighting the education gap for generations, with little success. 


It dodges the point, that to reach equal outcome, when blacks are less educated and thus less qualified, means a policy of government backed racist discrimination in hiring.


Which is bad enough, to support as a policy, but he is not even brave enough to be honest about the racism he is calling for.


And you call that awesome?


LOL!!!!! You are being moronic.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
Click to expand...



Do you consider yourself an American?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> One last time. S L O W L Y. Before I depart from this silly circular argument that you are so intent on engaging in:
> 
> 
> 1.  I do not care if YOU or anyone else sees your Confederate flag as a "harmless symbol of regional pride that has stood for 150 years".
> 
> I witnessed it being present in the hands of racist, anti civil rights scum in the early 1960's. In case you did not realize it, the 1960's were LESS than 60  years ago. So you can stop wasting your time trying to convince me that most of the country has viewed  it  as "harmless" for that length of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you give those relatively few racists what they want ie the power to co-opt those symbols for their purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I will not admit to something that I disagree with for the sake of making you comfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But on what grounds can you disagree with me? The evidence from the show is clear, good clean fun.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I am not "incorrect" in my view of what your so called "positions" revolve around. It is obvious that anything that you remotely perceive as not being aligned with your extremely radical, far  right, pro white agenda, you consider to be an assault on ALL white people, as a self proclaimed spokesperson for that demographic, evidenced by your attempt to lecture me on a topic that you have no understanding of or experience with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding and experience is just as valid as your own. We live in an insane world, were you can say something like, "your views are invalid because you are white", and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.  Your insistence on labeling others who do not agree with your views as "lefties" is a tactic that you default to in nearly every thread that I've seen you present in. And then after that, you progress to "race baiting asshole" as your next level of defense. Which is exactly why I normally don't respond to much of what you have to say.
> 
> Most rabidly political zealots of any kind are normally impossible to reason with.  And I usually don't waste valuable time attempting to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For a number of posts in a row, you've managed to be relatively civil and actually address the topic and my points, seriously and I believe, honesty.
> 
> 
> Note how I have replied in kind.
> 
> 
> I treat people with the level of respect they show me. When you see me calling people "lefties" or "race baiting assholes" it is because they have taken the discussion to that level.
> 
> 
> If you withdraw from the conversation at this point, it is not because I have been rude to you. I have not. So, don't kid yourself with that excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore I am agreeing to disagree and you are entitled to your views, but realize that you are nowhere near informed enough and lack the life experience to be critical of mine.
> 
> View attachment 313841
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, all you have to refute my many cited examples, from the BLue and Grey Reunion, to the Dukes of Hazzard, to Obama sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial,
> 
> 
> is that I am white, and thus my views can be discounted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the 100th  time. I personally do not care what race you are, nor do I personally care what your PERSONAL  perception of the Confederate flag is.
> 
> My difference of opinion from yours is mainly generational and part geographical.
> 
> What you continue to sidestep is that since you ARE white, you NEVER were part of a demographic that was denied the most  basic of civil rights, and you NEVER witnessed your own family having human waste thrown on them by "people" WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS for peacefully demonstrating.
> 
> Unlike you, to me that so called "symbol of regional pride" represents a culture that could return if given enough acceptance, and is not harmless in my view.
> 
> A swastika could just as easily be viewed  as a harmless symbol as well....by certain people.
> 
> You are futilely  attempting to make a point to the wrong person on this subject.
> 
> I agreed to disagree.
> 
> Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.
> 
> 2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs?
> 
> 5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
Click to expand...


Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative. 

Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours? I did not.

What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.

That is not the same as me stating that your opinions are not "valid".

They obviously are to you, which at the risk of me sounding redundant like you are, is your right.

As far as me "reneging" on the so called  reconciliation between the Confederacy and the union, I do not possess the political influence to do do.

However, I do have the right as a citizen, to not agree with the opinion that the Confederate flag is not just "a harmless symbol".


Just as you have the right to believe that it is.

As far as you claiming me stating that you "COULD NOT experience an event based on your race", get your facts in order.

I stated that based on "generational and geographical differences", you DID NOT experience what I did.

That is obviously  not the same as "could not".

If you actually believe otherwise, please feel free to share specifically which civil rights march you were present at in 1963, when anti civil rights, Confederate flag waving protesters were present.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you give those relatively few racists what they want ie the power to co-opt those symbols for their purposes?
> 
> 
> 
> But on what grounds can you disagree with me? The evidence from the show is clear, good clean fun.
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding and experience is just as valid as your own. We live in an insane world, were you can say something like, "your views are invalid because you are white", and expect to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For a number of posts in a row, you've managed to be relatively civil and actually address the topic and my points, seriously and I believe, honesty.
> 
> 
> Note how I have replied in kind.
> 
> 
> I treat people with the level of respect they show me. When you see me calling people "lefties" or "race baiting assholes" it is because they have taken the discussion to that level.
> 
> 
> If you withdraw from the conversation at this point, it is not because I have been rude to you. I have not. So, don't kid yourself with that excuse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, all you have to refute my many cited examples, from the BLue and Grey Reunion, to the Dukes of Hazzard, to Obama sending a wreath to the Confederate Memorial,
> 
> 
> is that I am white, and thus my views can be discounted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the 100th  time. I personally do not care what race you are, nor do I personally care what your PERSONAL  perception of the Confederate flag is.
> 
> My difference of opinion from yours is mainly generational and part geographical.
> 
> What you continue to sidestep is that since you ARE white, you NEVER were part of a demographic that was denied the most  basic of civil rights, and you NEVER witnessed your own family having human waste thrown on them by "people" WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS for peacefully demonstrating.
> 
> Unlike you, to me that so called "symbol of regional pride" represents a culture that could return if given enough acceptance, and is not harmless in my view.
> 
> A swastika could just as easily be viewed  as a harmless symbol as well....by certain people.
> 
> You are futilely  attempting to make a point to the wrong person on this subject.
> 
> I agreed to disagree.
> 
> Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.
> 
> 2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs?
> 
> 5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative, but not a personal choice of mine.
> 
> Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours?
> 
> What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.
> 
> That is not the same as me stating that your opinions are not "valid".
> 
> They obviously are to you, which at the risk of me sounding redundant like you are, is your right.
> 
> As far as me "reneging" on the so called  reconciliation between the Confederacy and the union, I do not possess the political influence to do do.
> 
> However, I do have the right as citizen, to not agree with the opinion that the Confederate flag is not just "a harmless symbol".
> 
> 
> Just as you have the right to believe that it is.
> ......
Click to expand...



But your side of the divide is not leaving at that. THey are taking steps to drive from the public square any public display of such history or pride AND to marginalize anyone that disagrees with you on this or similar issues.


It is all part of a general anti-white stance, where even saying "white" in relation to white people, is seen and treated as taboo.


(unless it is to attack them, of course)


----------



## daveman

Faun said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, there are people _still owning human beings_ in the world.
> 
> But since they're not whitey, you don't give a shit.
> 
> But whitey must pay, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.
> 
> You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
Click to expand...

That's nice.  Go play.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Correll

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.
> 
> You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
Click to expand...




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


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


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since slavery is no longer legal in America, there seems to be an inability for white racists to discuss the continuing racism by whites in America since slavery has ended. You don't care about slavery around the world, you use it to try dismissing the racism people like you still exhibit here in America. Why? Because you don't talk about European slavery when you do so. So again, I understand your cowardice relative to the inability you have to discuss the continuance of white racism in America since slavery ended. And you certainly do not want to discuss the worldwide picture of white imperialism which continues today in most of the world.
> 
> You are out of your league here junior and the information you read at stormfront won't help you if you continue with this cowardice.
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## daveman

Correll said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
Click to expand...

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

Rational people, however, don't do that.


----------



## Faun

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note: It needs 2. Not just 1. Two erect phallic symbols.. to compensate for its woeful lack of substance..
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.
Click to expand...

LOL 

Your delusions are not reality.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't talk about these things now can you. You don't have any clue about them. If you did, you'd be running your mouth. You came here to fuck with me and got your racist white ass kicked with a quickness.
Click to expand...

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

Your phone should be ringing any minute with a gig.


----------



## Faun

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


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## daveman

Faun said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314070
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your delusions are not reality.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Faun

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your delusions are not reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's not my fault if you can look directly at something and claim it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

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

You're fucking deranged.  

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the 100th  time. I personally do not care what race you are, nor do I personally care what your PERSONAL  perception of the Confederate flag is.
> 
> My difference of opinion from yours is mainly generational and part geographical.
> 
> What you continue to sidestep is that since you ARE white, you NEVER were part of a demographic that was denied the most  basic of civil rights, and you NEVER witnessed your own family having human waste thrown on them by "people" WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS for peacefully demonstrating.
> 
> Unlike you, to me that so called "symbol of regional pride" represents a culture that could return if given enough acceptance, and is not harmless in my view.
> 
> A swastika could just as easily be viewed  as a harmless symbol as well....by certain people.
> 
> You are futilely  attempting to make a point to the wrong person on this subject.
> 
> I agreed to disagree.
> 
> Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.
> 
> 2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs?
> 
> 5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative, but not a personal choice of mine.
> 
> Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours?
> 
> What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.
> 
> That is not the same as me stating that your opinions are not "valid".
> 
> They obviously are to you, which at the risk of me sounding redundant like you are, is your right.
> 
> As far as me "reneging" on the so called  reconciliation between the Confederacy and the union, I do not possess the political influence to do do.
> 
> However, I do have the right as citizen, to not agree with the opinion that the Confederate flag is not just "a harmless symbol".
> 
> 
> Just as you have the right to believe that it is.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But your side of the divide is not leaving at that. THey are taking steps to drive from the public square any public display of such history or pride AND to marginalize anyone that disagrees with you on this or similar issues.
> 
> 
> It is all part of a general anti-white stance, where even saying "white" in relation to white people, is seen and treated as taboo.
> 
> 
> (unless it is to attack them, of course)
Click to expand...


So now, we are finally at the root cause of you


Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, for the 100th  time. I personally do not care what race you are, nor do I personally care what your PERSONAL  perception of the Confederate flag is.
> 
> My difference of opinion from yours is mainly generational and part geographical.
> 
> What you continue to sidestep is that since you ARE white, you NEVER were part of a demographic that was denied the most  basic of civil rights, and you NEVER witnessed your own family having human waste thrown on them by "people" WAVING CONFEDERATE FLAGS for peacefully demonstrating.
> 
> Unlike you, to me that so called "symbol of regional pride" represents a culture that could return if given enough acceptance, and is not harmless in my view.
> 
> A swastika could just as easily be viewed  as a harmless symbol as well....by certain people.
> 
> You are futilely  attempting to make a point to the wrong person on this subject.
> 
> I agreed to disagree.
> 
> Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.
> 
> 2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs?
> 
> 5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative, but not a personal choice of mine.
> 
> Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours?
> 
> What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.
> 
> That is not the same as me stating that your opinions are not "valid".
> 
> They obviously are to you, which at the risk of me sounding redundant like you are, is your right.
> 
> As far as me "reneging" on the so called  reconciliation between the Confederacy and the union, I do not possess the political influence to do do.
> 
> However, I do have the right as citizen, to not agree with the opinion that the Confederate flag is not just "a harmless symbol".
> 
> 
> Just as you have the right to believe that it is.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But your side of the divide is not leaving at that. THey are taking steps to drive from the public square any public display of such history or pride AND to marginalize anyone that disagrees with you on this or similar issues.
> 
> 
> It is all part of a general anti-white stance, where even saying "white" in relation to white people, is seen and treated as taboo.
> 
> 
> (unless it is to attack them, of course)
Click to expand...



So now,  after numerous posts, we are finally at the root cause of your anguish over the Confederate flag not being universally accepted by all Americans.

And not  sharing your view of it, is the equivalent of being  me being "anti white.

That is simply astonishing. Especially since  I have not personally criticized your embrace of it at all.

In fact, I've reinforced your right to believe as you wish.

Your view of  my personal non acceptance of the Confederate flag as an "anti white" position, in spite of the fact that I personally viewed it as a symbol of anti civil rights, and saw it as such, because it was an ever  present symbol of belief to those whose fundamental ideology was that people "like me" were not entitled as citizens such rights.

I get it now.

In your view, people like me, who actually  saw what it stood for in my lifetime, should just acquiesce and assume an empathetic and passive posture  because those like you who were not even here to experience what those like me did,  just because YOU happen to consider it to be an  "anti white" assault on the white population as a whole..

Correct?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


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



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

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
Click to expand...

Oh my, look who's fallen to appealing to ridicule now, big fella? High time you cut back on the flaming fallaciousness, I'd say. This flagrant fellatio with popguns is all felonious failure as well. For mercy's sake.. find a room, fuckface!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
Click to expand...

You're right. Tried being a Democrat for many years. They're "conservative" too. Hell, Trump is busy now playing reverse Clinton. More socialist programs than the most progressive Democrat dare imagine. There's never truly been any liberal choice. Conservative either. Both are good and essential to check one another. Truth is we are vastly represented by those who simply beg best for major corporate campaign cash while lying best to the voters. Untelevised revolution is required.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've talked about European slavery.  If you have to lie to make your point, your point isn't worth making.
> 
> And no, once again, just because I don't kiss your ass like the white leftists here, that doesn't make me racist.  That argument is old and busted.
> 
> Run along now, kid.  I suggest you find someplace on the internet where your racism isn't challenged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't talk about these things now can you. You don't have any clue about them. If you did, you'd be running your mouth. You came here to fuck with me and got your racist white ass kicked with a quickness.
Click to expand...



Do you consider yourself an American?


----------



## Correll

daveman said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
Click to expand...



I've pointed out to him, that when the lefties give him a pass on saying stupid shit, that they are in effect, giving him a racist pat on the head, while when I call him on his stupidity, I am actually showing him the respect of judging his words based on their actual content.


He has not replied to that. On some level, it must be killing him to hear it.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.
> 
> 2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs?
> 
> 5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative, but not a personal choice of mine.
> 
> Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours?
> 
> What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.
> 
> That is not the same as me stating that your opinions are not "valid".
> 
> They obviously are to you, which at the risk of me sounding redundant like you are, is your right.
> 
> As far as me "reneging" on the so called  reconciliation between the Confederacy and the union, I do not possess the political influence to do do.
> 
> However, I do have the right as citizen, to not agree with the opinion that the Confederate flag is not just "a harmless symbol".
> 
> 
> Just as you have the right to believe that it is.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But your side of the divide is not leaving at that. THey are taking steps to drive from the public square any public display of such history or pride AND to marginalize anyone that disagrees with you on this or similar issues.
> 
> 
> It is all part of a general anti-white stance, where even saying "white" in relation to white people, is seen and treated as taboo.
> 
> 
> (unless it is to attack them, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now, we are finally at the root cause of you
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you open by stating that you do not care what my race is.
> 
> 2. Then you immediately cite my race as a reason to dismiss my views. IMMEDIATELY.
> 
> 3. My views and experiences are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 4. The Union vets who accepted the flying of the Confederate Flag at the Blue and Grey Reunion in Gettysburgh, they fought for years, many were wounded, or lost limbs, saw friends and family killed. How does your moral authority trump theirs?
> 
> 5. Attacking whites for having any pride in their culture and/or heritage, is what you want to do IF YOU WANT A RETURN TO WHITE RACISM AGAINST YOU AND YOURS. Do you think that tearing down those statues and banning those flags are going to build feelings of inclusion and tolerance in whites, or the exact opposite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative, but not a personal choice of mine.
> 
> Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours?
> 
> What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.
> 
> That is not the same as me stating that your opinions are not "valid".
> 
> They obviously are to you, which at the risk of me sounding redundant like you are, is your right.
> 
> As far as me "reneging" on the so called  reconciliation between the Confederacy and the union, I do not possess the political influence to do do.
> 
> However, I do have the right as citizen, to not agree with the opinion that the Confederate flag is not just "a harmless symbol".
> 
> 
> Just as you have the right to believe that it is.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But your side of the divide is not leaving at that. THey are taking steps to drive from the public square any public display of such history or pride AND to marginalize anyone that disagrees with you on this or similar issues.
> 
> 
> It is all part of a general anti-white stance, where even saying "white" in relation to white people, is seen and treated as taboo.
> 
> 
> (unless it is to attack them, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now,  after numerous posts, we are finally at the root cause of your anguish over the Confederate flag not being universally accepted by all Americans.
> 
> And not  sharing your view of it, is the equivalent of being  me being "anti white.
> 
> That is simply astonishing. Especially since  I have not personally criticized your embrace of it at all.
> 
> In fact, I've reinforced your right to believe as you wish.
> 
> Your view of  my personal non acceptance of the Confederate flag as an "anti white" position, in spite of the fact that I personally viewed it as a symbol of anti civil rights, and saw it as such, because it was an ever  present symbol of belief to those whose fundamental ideology was that people "like me" were not entitled as citizens such rights.
> 
> I get it now.
> 
> In your view, people like me, who actually  saw what it stood for in my lifetime, should just acquiesce and assume an empathetic and passive posture  because those like you who were not even here to experience what those like me did,  just because YOU happen to consider it to be an  "anti white" assault on the white population as a whole..
> 
> Correct?
Click to expand...






YOu are stating that blacks are morally superior to whites because of their "experiences" that whites cannot have because of race.


You are trying to dance around stating the the basis of your difference in rules, is based on skin color.


That you judge whites, as a race, to not be able to have the "experiences" that you have had, and thus to not be able to understand your "experiences",


is just an evasive and lawyer speak way of avoiding admitting that you have different rules for people depending on their race.


And whites are low man on the totem pole, in your view.



That is what is anti-white about it.



I reject your race based rules. My "experiences" and the things I have personally "viewed" are just as valid as yours.


The "experiences" of millions, tens of millions of Americans for whom those symbols have been harmless symbols of regional pride are just as valid as yours.


And for you, and/or people like you to demonize them, or marginalize them, or call them names, based on that, is an assault on them and me and mine.


A symbolic one, sometimes. But not always.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh my, look who's fallen to appealing to ridicule now, big fella? High time you cut back on the flaming fallaciousness, I'd say. This flagrant fellatio with popguns is all felonious failure as well. For mercy's sake.. find a room, fuckface!
Click to expand...




When he talks shit about talking about a case, and does NOT talk about the case at all, but instead makes multiple personal and racist attacks, often using racist slurs, yes, it is time to insult the race baiting asshole BACK.


So, you'll supposedly anti-racist right? Yet, you're not calling IM2, on his use of racist anti-white slurs?


Why is that?

Rhetorical question. I know why. You defer to the black man. 


Because black has moral superiority in your world. ANd judging people by race and finding one group inferior to another is racist.


Unless the inferior group is whites. Then it is ok.


You feeling any discomfort with any of this, or does it all seem completely reasonable to you?


----------



## daveman

Faun said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your delusions are not reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's not my fault if you can look directly at something and claim it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminating the Second Amendment is not the left's position. Neither of the only two remaining Democrat candidates for president propose eliminating it. Biden himself bitchslapped someone recently for falsely attributing that position to him.
> 
> You're fucking deranged.
> 
> More so than I thought as now I see you really do b'lieve your delusions are real.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment

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

Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment

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

Repeal the Second Amendment

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative, but not a personal choice of mine.
> 
> Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours?
> 
> What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.
> 
> That is not the same as me stating that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative, but not a personal choice of mine.
> 
> Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours?
> 
> What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.
> 
> That is not the same as me stating that your opinions are not "valid".
> 
> They obviously are to you, which at the risk of me sounding redundant like you are, is your right.
> 
> As far as me "reneging" on the so called  reconciliation between the Confederacy and the union, I do not possess the political influence to do do.
> 
> However, I do have the right as citizen, to not agree with the opinion that the Confederate flag is not just "a harmless symbol".
> 
> 
> Just as you have the right to believe that it is.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But your side of the divide is not leaving at that. THey are taking steps to drive from the public square any public display of such history or pride AND to marginalize anyone that disagrees with you on this or similar issues.
> 
> 
> It is all part of a general anti-white stance, where even saying "white" in relation to white people, is seen and treated as taboo.
> 
> 
> (unless it is to attack them, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So now, we are finally at the root cause of you
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Now I think you just want to argue for the sake of being obtuse. I have patiently listened to your opinion and repeatedly  expressed that it is your right to believe what you wish, while making it clear that I have the same right.
> 
> That is far from "dismissing" what you had to say, I'm just not changing my view in order to placate you, that is what appears to be your problem.
> 
> Now you are being redundant and attempting to put your personal spin on what I am stating.
> 
> There is a difference between me not caring what race you are personally, versus you NOT experiencing certain things that I did because of racial differences.
> 
> You couldn't have experienced what I did based on that. And like it or not,  that is something that is just a reality.
> .......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is you bringing up my race and your race as the reason(s) why your view is more valid. That you put the spin in there of "experience" is just another way of saying race.
> 
> 
> Cause on someone of YOUR race could experience that, and I can't EXPERIENCE it, because of my race.
> 
> 
> I was not a Union vet, no. But the Union vets were part of the generation that decided on a policy of reconciliation with the South.
> 
> 
> Who are you to renege on that reconciliation? What moral authority do you have, that trumps those that fought and suffered to defeat the Confederacy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those who fought and suffered at the Confederacy are now long dead. The desire of some to commemorate their choice to do so, is their prerogative, but not a personal choice of mine.
> 
> Furthermore, where have I stated that MY opinion is more "valid" than yours?
> 
> What I stated is that there are events that I experienced that YOU did not, based on a number of of obvious factors.
> 
> That is not the same as me stating that your opinions are not "valid".
> 
> They obviously are to you, which at the risk of me sounding redundant like you are, is your right.
> 
> As far as me "reneging" on the so called  reconciliation between the Confederacy and the union, I do not possess the political influence to do do.
> 
> However, I do have the right as citizen, to not agree with the opinion that the Confederate flag is not just "a harmless symbol".
> 
> 
> Just as you have the right to believe that it is.
> ......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But your side of the divide is not leaving at that. THey are taking steps to drive from the public square any public display of such history or pride AND to marginalize anyone that disagrees with you on this or similar issues.
> 
> 
> It is all part of a general anti-white stance, where even saying "white" in relation to white people, is seen and treated as taboo.
> 
> 
> (unless it is to attack them, of course)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So now,  after numerous posts, we are finally at the root cause of your anguish over the Confederate flag not being universally accepted by all Americans.
> 
> And not  sharing your view of it, is the equivalent of being  me being "anti white.
> 
> That is simply astonishing. Especially since  I have not personally criticized your embrace of it at all.
> 
> In fact, I've reinforced your right to believe as you wish.
> 
> Your view of  my personal non acceptance of the Confederate flag as an "anti white" position, in spite of the fact that I personally viewed it as a symbol of anti civil rights, and saw it as such, because it was an ever  present symbol of belief to those whose fundamental ideology was that people "like me" were not entitled as citizens such rights.
> 
> I get it now.
> 
> In your view, people like me, who actually  saw what it stood for in my lifetime, should just acquiesce and assume an empathetic and passive posture  because those like you who were not even here to experience what those like me did,  just because YOU happen to consider it to be an  "anti white" assault on the white population as a whole..
> 
> Correct?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are stating that blacks are morally superior to whites because of their "experiences" that whites cannot have because of race.
> 
> 
> You are trying to dance around stating the the basis of your difference in rules, is based on skin color.
> 
> 
> That you judge whites, as a race, to not be able to have the "experiences" that you have had, and thus to not be able to understand your "experiences",
> 
> 
> is just an evasive and lawyer speak way of avoiding admitting that you have different rules for people depending on their race.
> 
> 
> And whites are low man on the totem pole, in your view.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what is anti-white about it.
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your race based rules. My "experiences" and the things I have personally "viewed" are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 
> The "experiences" of millions, tens of millions of Americans for whom those symbols have been harmless symbols of regional pride are just as valid as yours.
> 
> 
> And for you, and/or people like you to demonize them, or marginalize them, or call them names, based on that, is an assault on them and me and mine.
> 
> 
> A symbolic one, sometimes. But not always.
Click to expand...


That is total bullshit, and is you spinning MY words as an "anti white" narrative.

I never stated that  I begrudge your views in any way.

In fact, I have REPEATEDLY stated that you are free to believe as you choose, just as I am.

AND, I have also stated that I have a right to disagree with your views about the Confederate flag, soley based on my own  experiences with it.

You are apparently itching for a nonsensical fight over what YOU deem as me having beliefs that do not mirror yours.

Over and over, I have expressed that YOU are free to think as you wish, and have also reinforced that I can as well.

Do you not understand the difference between "You COULD NOT" experience what I did,  versus ""You DID NOT experience what I did"?

Or are you just too obstinate to understand what I  am saying?

The fact that you are even attempting to futilely arguie that point is astounding beyond any sense of reason.

Your "position" is obviously one that seeks to identify any hint of  of what you perceive to be "anti white" discrimination,  and you tirelessly  seek to  exploit that to your advantage, by attempting to label any rebuttal to your rhetoric as being an "anti white" conspiracy.

And to that, I say "BULLSHIT"


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
Click to expand...


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

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


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't talk about these things now can you. You don't have any clue about them. If you did, you'd be running your mouth. You came here to fuck with me and got your racist white ass kicked with a quickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Hello, Central Casting?  I have a part for a guy.  'Angry Black Man'.  Yes, the angrier, the better....Right.  Lots of calling people racist, lots of arrogance, lots of 'bowing up', as the kids say...You have a guy?  Awesome!  Have his agent call him!"
> 
> Your phone should be ringing any minute with a gig.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your delusions are not reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's not my fault if you can look directly at something and claim it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminating the Second Amendment is not the left's position. Neither of the only two remaining Democrat candidates for president propose eliminating it. Biden himself bitchslapped someone recently for falsely attributing that position to him.
> 
> You're fucking deranged.
> 
> More so than I thought as now I see you really do b'lieve your delusions are real.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right. Tried being a Democrat for many years. They're "conservative" too. Hell, Trump is busy now playing reverse Clinton. More socialist programs than the most progressive Democrat dare imagine. There's never truly been any liberal choice. Conservative either. Both are good and essential to check one another. Truth is we are vastly represented by those who simply beg best for major corporate campaign cash while lying best to the voters. Untelevised revolution is required.
Click to expand...


AMEN!!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> When he talks shit about talking about a case, and does NOT talk about the case at all,


Ah, you're talking shit again. Big surprise.


Correll said:


> but instead makes multiple personal and racist attacks, often using racist slurs,


You mean like you're doing now. Yeah, I get it.


> yes, it is time to insult the race baiting asshole BACK.


Indeed, you reap exactly what you sow.


Correll said:


> So, you'll supposedly anti-racist right?


What?


Correll said:


> Yet, you're not calling IM2, on his use of racist anti-white slurs?


No, I'm calling you out on yours. Far as IM2, turnabout is fair play. You projecting your own shitty behavior onto others is what's bullshit.


Correll said:


> Why is that?
> 
> Rhetorical question. I know why. You defer to the black man.


Talking to yourself now.. Seen a shrink lately?


Correll said:


> Because black has moral superiority in your world. ANd judging people by race and finding one group inferior to another is racist.


Well thanks for asking.. but no, that ain't my world. I can imagine talking to yourself being so much easier than all that pesky waiting, listening, and considering though..


Correll said:


> Unless the inferior group is whites. Then it is ok.
> 
> 
> You feeling any discomfort with any of this, or does it all seem completely reasonable to you?


No, you do seem disturbingly nuts.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
Click to expand...




1. I demonstrated national policies of anti-white discrimination many times. Your stone walling is just you being too stupid to know how stupid you look.


2. Actually, you asked someone else that. I was just pointing out how you asked the question, and then just posted race baiting shit. I never heard of it. But I guessed from your words that it was in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War, I was right wasn't I?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> When he talks shit about talking about a case, and does NOT talk about the case at all,
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, you're talking shit again. Big surprise.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> but instead makes multiple personal and racist attacks, often using racist slurs,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean like you're doing now. Yeah, I get it.
> 
> 
> 
> yes, it is time to insult the race baiting asshole BACK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Indeed, you reap exactly what you sow.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you'll supposedly anti-racist right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yet, you're not calling IM2, on his use of racist anti-white slurs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I'm calling you out on yours. Far as IM2, turnabout is fair play. You projecting your own shitty behavior onto others is what's bullshit.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is that?
> 
> Rhetorical question. I know why. You defer to the black man.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talking to yourself now.. Seen a shrink lately?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because black has moral superiority in your world. ANd judging people by race and finding one group inferior to another is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well thanks for asking.. but no, that ain't my world. I can imagine talking to yourself being so much easier than all that pesky waiting, listening, and considering though..
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unless the inferior group is whites. Then it is ok.
> 
> 
> You feeling any discomfort with any of this, or does it all seem completely reasonable to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you do seem disturbingly nuts.
Click to expand...



1. What racial slurs have I used, supposedly?


2. YOur excuses for giving IM2 a pass, are completely pathetic.


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


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


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


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Faun

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your delusions are not reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's not my fault if you can look directly at something and claim it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminating the Second Amendment is not the left's position. Neither of the only two remaining Democrat candidates for president propose eliminating it. Biden himself bitchslapped someone recently for falsely attributing that position to him.
> 
> You're fucking deranged.
> 
> More so than I thought as now I see you really do b'lieve your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm, Biden said he was going to appoint Beta to run gun policy.
> 
> You know, Beta, the guy who said he was going to take away people's ARs?
> 
> Meanwhile, in the reality you pretend doesn't exist:
> 
> Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
> 
> Repeal the Second Amendment -- That's the New York Times, by the way.
> 
> Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment
> 
> Repealing the Second Amendment isn't easy but it's what March for Our Lives students need
> 
> Repeal the Second Amendment
> 
> You can screech NUH UH!! all you want, but it's pointless.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## IM2

Correll, you have not shown any policy of national anti white discrimination. You can't because one does not exist. I asked if daveman knew anything about the case. If he did, we would have discussed it. But he didn't. Since he didn't I have no reason to discuss it.  So you go look it up and learn that this decision allowed the government at every level to help enforce racially restrictive covenants in housing thereby enforcing racism nationally.  These covenants lasted into the late 1960's by government decree but still operate in agreements right now. So when I sat whites have what they do because of the government, this is one example of that. And that, is what a national policy of anti black discrimination is. It is not an opinion repeated among racist losers like your false claim.


----------



## IM2

Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people. But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota. Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.


----------



## IM2




----------



## katsteve2012

Alan Stallion said:


> Lt. Col. Allen West would have a good run if he chose to run this decade.
> 
> Republicans could have had Dr. Alan Keyes in 2000, but unfortunately went with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bush's 2000 rival John McCain in 2008.





daveman said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.
> 
> I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT has nothing to do with anyone being on the "left, right or middle", and you know it.
> 
> It is you attempting to persuade another poster to say something against a poster that you disagree with in order to defend yet  another poster that you are obviously in agreement with.
> 
> That is some childish, petty bullshit.
> 
> I dont see you "chastising" anyone who you think is on the so called called "right", so work on your own  hypocrisy, and consider finding a new "hobby"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  Okay, you get a checkmark in the "hates it when his hypocrisy is pointed out" column.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left can't exist without their double standards.  Period.  End of story.  More whining about it changes nothing, so don't even bother.
Click to expand...


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

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

Now get lost.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens.
> 
> 
> 
> That sums up this topic neatly, and many others I've seen. Just trying to picture all these put upon "white people" clutching their pearls while pounding out this daily stream of insufferable dreck... _Yuck!!  _Makes perfect sense to be a proud, surviving, marginalized minority. Hard finding much to celebrate about identifying as a member of a neck crushing majority.
Click to expand...



1. I'm not "clutching pearls". I'm a middle class man with real interests and/or grievances and that was you dismissing them, and using a racist stereotype to do it.


2. And the bit about "proud, surviving minority" vs " neck crushing majority"? That is you, once again, stating fairly clearly that you consider blacks morally superior to whites. THat is judging people by race, not their actual character. You are the racist here not me.  You and IM2. 


3. How can you be so lacking in self awareness as to read your own words and not see your anti-white racism in them?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
Click to expand...


I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.



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



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

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


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll, you have not shown any policy of national anti white discrimination......




Sure, I have. Repeatedly. YOu are just lying.


Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites.  That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites. 



I have given well documented and very limited examples, for discussion purposes, that you pretended to be too stupid to understand.


----------



## Polishprince

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....





I like Brodus Clay for President,  now serving this nation on Fox News as "Tyrus"


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't talk about these things now can you. You don't have any clue about them. If you did, you'd be running your mouth. You came here to fuck with me and got your racist white ass kicked with a quickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Hello, Central Casting?  I have a part for a guy.  'Angry Black Man'.  Yes, the angrier, the better....Right.  Lots of calling people racist, lots of arrogance, lots of 'bowing up', as the kids say...You have a guy?  Awesome!  Have his agent call him!"
> 
> Your phone should be ringing any minute with a gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens. So you just keep running because you can't discuss what has gone on since slavery ended because it crushed that little lie whites like you have made up. I beat your ass, and you know it. I Beat Correll long ago. He's a joke, a whiny snot nose joke, now you have joined the Correll the clown club.
Click to expand...




By "beat", you mean, "perfected the pretend to be too stupid to understand his argument tactic, and my white lib friends tell me that I did good"


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
Click to expand...



Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his. 

That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.

I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people. But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota. Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.






1. There are no white quotas today and not for many generations. 

2. There are not many moderate black republicans. Blacks who buck the pressure to conform to the lib herd, tend to go hard core. You don't do that, so you can stake out the middle ground. YOu pretend to want a black republican, you dis those you disagree with, now you want to limit the pool further to MODERATE black republicans. 

3. There is nothing extreme about President Trump's policies or actions. I could accept is someone found his mannerism extremely annoying. That is it.

4.  YOur racist dismissal of black republicans makes a mockery of your attacks on us for not electing them President. You racist clown.

5. Do you consider yourself an American?


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
Click to expand...



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


They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
Click to expand...

LOL 

YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist. YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...

_"And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."_​
... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
Click to expand...

It's not false.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist. YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> _"And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."_​
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
Click to expand...



He did not clearly state what you are claiming his statement HAD to mean.


Ask him. You are just assuming the worst about people you hate. That is not very convincing.


AND, HE is wrong. Exit polls from 1996, strongly show that Republicans would have happily elected Colin Powell against Bill Fucking Clinton, if Powell had run.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
Click to expand...

LOL

If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president?  Why are nearly all blacks in Congress Democrats? Why are rightwingers the ones holding Unite the Right racist rallies? Why are rightwingers the ones primarily supporting the history of the racist confederacy?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist. YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> _"And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."_​
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not clearly state what you are claiming his statement HAD to mean.
> 
> 
> Ask him. You are just assuming the worst about people you hate. That is not very convincing.
> 
> 
> AND, HE is wrong. Exit polls from 1996, strongly show that Republicans would have happily elected Colin Powell against Bill Fucking Clinton, if Powell had run.
Click to expand...

It's easy to tell a pollster you'd vote for someone you'd never really vote for. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




That's meaningless.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
Click to expand...






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


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


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


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


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


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


Whatever. FUck off and die.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
Click to expand...



Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went. 


Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.



Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks". 

IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards. 



> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.



100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway. 

Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
              2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.

Look it up.



> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.



Opinion.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
Click to expand...




Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
Click to expand...


*LOL*

No, I did not.



> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...



No, I did not.
​_



			"And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
		
Click to expand...

_​


> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.



It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.

As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?
Click to expand...


Back then it would have been likely. Or at least, he would have made a good showing. But in today's racially divided political climate? I just don't know. 

There's no doubt in my mind that most Republicans would vote for Powell today, provided he still held to the conservative values he held back then (some say he leans a little more left today than he did then. I don't know, myself). But, I'm no political science expert but it seems to me that most elections are not won or lost by party members strictly voting their party. A lot of elections swing on convincing the fence-sitters and in today's racially charged atmosphere, a lot of erstwhile black fence-sitters are leaning left because other blacks and many liberal whites are screaming racial dogma at them that if they don't vote Democrat, they are selling out and betraying their race.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens.
> 
> 
> 
> That sums up this topic neatly, and many others I've seen. Just trying to picture all these put upon "white people" clutching their pearls while pounding out this daily stream of insufferable dreck... _Yuck!!  _Makes perfect sense to be a proud, surviving, marginalized minority. Hard finding much to celebrate about identifying as a member of a neck crushing majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm not "clutching pearls". I'm a middle class man with real interests and/or grievances and that was you dismissing them, and using a racist stereotype to do it.
Click to expand...

Okay, are you on drugs?  "clutching pearls" is an old feminist cliché. 
What racist stereotype? In your "middle class" world, what non-racist, alternative words or phrases do you allow others to use when discussing these matters? 


> 2. And the bit about "proud, surviving minority" vs " neck crushing majority"? That is you, once again, stating fairly clearly that you consider blacks morally superior to whites. THat is judging people by race, not their actual character. You are the racist here not me. You and IM2.


But of course! The same logic couldn't possibly apply to the Chinese vs the Uyghurs, the Nazis vs the Jews, the Russians vs the Ukrainians, Goliath vs David, the sole proprietor vs Walmart, the U.S. Air Force vs King Kong... No, by not specifying I was clearly picking on these victimized "white people" even though I'm one, and victimized by a minority of blacks in particular despite the countless other possible contenders. Yep, you be a veritable train wreck of illogic, sir.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then it would have been likely. Or at least, he would have made a good showing. But in today's racially divided political climate? I just don't know.
> 
> There's no doubt in my mind that most Republicans would vote for Powell today, provided he still held to the conservative values he held back then (some say he leans a little more left today than he did then. I don't know, myself). But, I'm no political science expert but it seems to me that most elections are not won or lost by party members strictly voting their party. A lot of elections swing on convincing the fence-sitters and in today's racially charged atmosphere, a lot of erstwhile black fence-sitters are leaning left because other blacks and many liberal whites are screaming racial dogma at them that if they don't vote Democrat, they are selling out and betraying their race.
Click to expand...



We are not "racially divided" in that whites are angry at blacks. We are angry at Liberals who keep attacking us on various bullshit reasons.


All any black republican candidate would have to do, is demonstrate somehow that they are not part of that group, and they would not be judged as part of that group. 


It would be easy.  The most obvious way to do it, would be in the primaries to speak out in DEFENSE of one of his primary opponents, who were falsely accused of racism by some moron, for attacking him. 


It would demonstrate that he was disagreeing with his opponents on policy, but not calling him "racists" for disagreeing with a black man.


Obama never said that. Or if he did, he did not mean it. Right there, any fence sitters would  know, that the black republican was NOT one of the assholes.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens.
> 
> 
> 
> That sums up this topic neatly, and many others I've seen. Just trying to picture all these put upon "white people" clutching their pearls while pounding out this daily stream of insufferable dreck... _Yuck!!  _Makes perfect sense to be a proud, surviving, marginalized minority. Hard finding much to celebrate about identifying as a member of a neck crushing majority.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm not "clutching pearls". I'm a middle class man with real interests and/or grievances and that was you dismissing them, and using a racist stereotype to do it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, are you on drugs?  "clutching pearls" is an old feminist cliché.
> What racist stereotype? In your "middle class" world, what non-racist, alternative words or phrases do you allow others to use when discussing these matters?
> 
> 
> 
> 2. And the bit about "proud, surviving minority" vs " neck crushing majority"? That is you, once again, stating fairly clearly that you consider blacks morally superior to whites. THat is judging people by race, not their actual character. You are the racist here not me. You and IM2.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But of course! The same logic couldn't possibly apply to the Chinese vs the Uyghurs, the Nazis vs the Jews, the Russians vs the Ukrainians, Goliath vs David, the sole proprietor vs Walmart, the U.S. Air Force vs King Kong... No, by not specifying I was clearly picking on these victimized "white people" even though I'm one, and victimized by a minority of blacks in particular despite the countless other possible contenders. Yep, you be a veritable train wreck of illogic, sir.
Click to expand...





1.  And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously. 


2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior is them being a minority, does not change the fact that you are judging individuals by their race, and judging them by different rules based on their race.  That is racism. 

3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites, generations after slavery was ended, is appalling. You should be ashamed of your racism.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.


Who's the racist?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then it would have been likely. Or at least, he would have made a good showing. But in today's racially divided political climate? I just don't know.
> 
> There's no doubt in my mind that most Republicans would vote for Powell today, provided he still held to the conservative values he held back then (some say he leans a little more left today than he did then. I don't know, myself). But, I'm no political science expert but it seems to me that most elections are not won or lost by party members strictly voting their party. A lot of elections swing on convincing the fence-sitters and in today's racially charged atmosphere, a lot of erstwhile black fence-sitters are leaning left because other blacks and many liberal whites are screaming racial dogma at them that if they don't vote Democrat, they are selling out and betraying their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not "racially divided" in that whites are angry at blacks. We are angry at Liberals who keep attacking us on various bullshit reasons.
> 
> 
> All any black republican candidate would have to do, is demonstrate somehow that they are not part of that group, and they would not be judged as part of that group.
> 
> 
> It would be easy.  The most obvious way to do it, would be in the primaries to speak out in DEFENSE of one of his primary opponents, who were falsely accused of racism by some moron, for attacking him.
> 
> 
> It would demonstrate that he was disagreeing with his opponents on policy, but not calling him "racists" for disagreeing with a black man.
> 
> 
> Obama never said that. Or if he did, he did not mean it. Right there, any fence sitters would  know, that the black republican was NOT one of the assholes.
Click to expand...


You may be absolutely right. Question is: would it happen this way? Would a black Republican be able to sway the black fence-sitter? I don't know. But I do know it would be more of a challenge today than say, twenty years ago.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then it would have been likely. Or at least, he would have made a good showing. But in today's racially divided political climate? I just don't know.
> 
> There's no doubt in my mind that most Republicans would vote for Powell today, provided he still held to the conservative values he held back then (some say he leans a little more left today than he did then. I don't know, myself). But, I'm no political science expert but it seems to me that most elections are not won or lost by party members strictly voting their party. A lot of elections swing on convincing the fence-sitters and in today's racially charged atmosphere, a lot of erstwhile black fence-sitters are leaning left because other blacks and many liberal whites are screaming racial dogma at them that if they don't vote Democrat, they are selling out and betraying their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not "racially divided" in that whites are angry at blacks. We are angry at Liberals who keep attacking us on various bullshit reasons.
> 
> 
> All any black republican candidate would have to do, is demonstrate somehow that they are not part of that group, and they would not be judged as part of that group.
> 
> 
> It would be easy.  The most obvious way to do it, would be in the primaries to speak out in DEFENSE of one of his primary opponents, who were falsely accused of racism by some moron, for attacking him.
> 
> 
> It would demonstrate that he was disagreeing with his opponents on policy, but not calling him "racists" for disagreeing with a black man.
> 
> 
> Obama never said that. Or if he did, he did not mean it. Right there, any fence sitters would  know, that the black republican was NOT one of the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be absolutely right. Question is: would it happen this way? Would a black Republican be able to sway the black fence-sitter? I don't know. But I do know it would be more of a challenge today than say, twenty years ago.
Click to expand...



IMO, that fact that Powell would NOT be swaying the BLACK fence sitters so much as WHITE fence sitters, or more commonly referred to Reagan Democrats, would have been a GOOD thing.


It would have made the milestone of  the "First Black President" STRONGER, for him to have been elected primarily by whites instead of by high black turnout. 


Indeed, the idea that a BLACK republican's job, would be to  appeal to BLACK voters, is buying into the identity politics of the Left. 


Powell's big assets were his connection to Reagan and his military background, especially the win he got some credit for, in The Persian Gulf War.


Not his skin color.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the racist?
Click to expand...



The people pushing a policy that discriminates against a group, based on their "skin color" in this case discriminating against them based on their "white" skin color.


Are you really so conditioned to hear the term "white" as a negative, that you read it in a sentence about whites being discriminated against, and you see that as the white complaining being "racist"?


What part of this, are you not getting? Are you trying to say that you found something in my post, to be ME being racist? If so WHAT? And are you fucking insane?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.


You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.


Correll said:


> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior


That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.


Correll said:


> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites


There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy! You've clearly got nothing else.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
Click to expand...





1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.

2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.

3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then it would have been likely. Or at least, he would have made a good showing. But in today's racially divided political climate? I just don't know.
> 
> There's no doubt in my mind that most Republicans would vote for Powell today, provided he still held to the conservative values he held back then (some say he leans a little more left today than he did then. I don't know, myself). But, I'm no political science expert but it seems to me that most elections are not won or lost by party members strictly voting their party. A lot of elections swing on convincing the fence-sitters and in today's racially charged atmosphere, a lot of erstwhile black fence-sitters are leaning left because other blacks and many liberal whites are screaming racial dogma at them that if they don't vote Democrat, they are selling out and betraying their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not "racially divided" in that whites are angry at blacks. We are angry at Liberals who keep attacking us on various bullshit reasons.
> 
> 
> All any black republican candidate would have to do, is demonstrate somehow that they are not part of that group, and they would not be judged as part of that group.
> 
> 
> It would be easy.  The most obvious way to do it, would be in the primaries to speak out in DEFENSE of one of his primary opponents, who were falsely accused of racism by some moron, for attacking him.
> 
> 
> It would demonstrate that he was disagreeing with his opponents on policy, but not calling him "racists" for disagreeing with a black man.
> 
> 
> Obama never said that. Or if he did, he did not mean it. Right there, any fence sitters would  know, that the black republican was NOT one of the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be absolutely right. Question is: would it happen this way? Would a black Republican be able to sway the black fence-sitter? I don't know. But I do know it would be more of a challenge today than say, twenty years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, that fact that Powell would NOT be swaying the BLACK fence sitters so much as WHITE fence sitters, or more commonly referred to Reagan Democrats, would have been a GOOD thing.
> 
> 
> It would have made the milestone of  the "First Black President" STRONGER, for him to have been elected primarily by whites instead of by high black turnout.
> 
> 
> Indeed, the idea that a BLACK republican's job, would be to  appeal to BLACK voters, is buying into the identity politics of the Left.
> 
> 
> Powell's big assets were his connection to Reagan and his military background, especially the win he got some credit for, in The Persian Gulf War.
> 
> 
> Not his skin color.
Click to expand...


I think you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from (or maybe I'm misunderstanding where you are coming from). I don't buy into identity politics any more than you. I don't think skin color should be a factor in _anything_. But unfortunately, this is the political climate we find ourselves in and the left is largely responsible for this.

I think a black nominee should campaign solely on a political platform and not make race an issue. I don't think he should try to win black fence-sitters on anything but that. However, race is very much an issue for a lot of blacks and I'm afraid they would assess a black nominee based on what he says along those lines.

It's not a reality I agree with or care for but it is reality nonetheless.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.
> 
> 2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.
Click to expand...

I'm white (for census purposes) and I have interests. I don't have "white interests." Only asshole racists like you think you have "white interests."
I defer to some minority members to best describe their own situation just as I defer to my dentist to best describe the condition of my teeth. Their  viewing angle is clearly better. It has nothing to do with superior morals.
You're just pissed since I caught you Godwinning something last week. Ignore the point then. I write for the benefit of others anyway, not for hopelessly self-deluded wackos like you.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then it would have been likely. Or at least, he would have made a good showing. But in today's racially divided political climate? I just don't know.
> 
> There's no doubt in my mind that most Republicans would vote for Powell today, provided he still held to the conservative values he held back then (some say he leans a little more left today than he did then. I don't know, myself). But, I'm no political science expert but it seems to me that most elections are not won or lost by party members strictly voting their party. A lot of elections swing on convincing the fence-sitters and in today's racially charged atmosphere, a lot of erstwhile black fence-sitters are leaning left because other blacks and many liberal whites are screaming racial dogma at them that if they don't vote Democrat, they are selling out and betraying their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not "racially divided" in that whites are angry at blacks. We are angry at Liberals who keep attacking us on various bullshit reasons.
> 
> 
> All any black republican candidate would have to do, is demonstrate somehow that they are not part of that group, and they would not be judged as part of that group.
> 
> 
> It would be easy.  The most obvious way to do it, would be in the primaries to speak out in DEFENSE of one of his primary opponents, who were falsely accused of racism by some moron, for attacking him.
> 
> 
> It would demonstrate that he was disagreeing with his opponents on policy, but not calling him "racists" for disagreeing with a black man.
> 
> 
> Obama never said that. Or if he did, he did not mean it. Right there, any fence sitters would  know, that the black republican was NOT one of the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be absolutely right. Question is: would it happen this way? Would a black Republican be able to sway the black fence-sitter? I don't know. But I do know it would be more of a challenge today than say, twenty years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, that fact that Powell would NOT be swaying the BLACK fence sitters so much as WHITE fence sitters, or more commonly referred to Reagan Democrats, would have been a GOOD thing.
> 
> 
> It would have made the milestone of  the "First Black President" STRONGER, for him to have been elected primarily by whites instead of by high black turnout.
> 
> 
> Indeed, the idea that a BLACK republican's job, would be to  appeal to BLACK voters, is buying into the identity politics of the Left.
> 
> 
> Powell's big assets were his connection to Reagan and his military background, especially the win he got some credit for, in The Persian Gulf War.
> 
> 
> Not his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from (or maybe I'm misunderstanding where you are coming from). I don't buy into identity politics any more than you. I don't think skin color should be a factor in _anything_. But unfortunately, this is the political climate we find ourselves in and the left is largely responsible for this.
> 
> I think a black nominee should campaign solely on a political platform and not make race an issue. I don't think he should try to win black fence-sitters on anything but that. However, race is very much an issue for a lot of blacks and I'm afraid they would assess a black nominee based on what he says along those lines.
> 
> It's not a reality I agree with or care for but it is reality nonetheless.
Click to expand...



IMO, a black republican would be heard by white fence sitters mostly pretty fine. 

I would love to see the funny pretzel logic the libs would have to  come up with, to justify calling us Racist in such a scenario.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.
> 
> 2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm white (for census purposes) and I have interests. I don't have "white interests." Only asshole racists like you think you have "white interests."
> I defer to some minority members to best describe their own situation just as I defer to my dentist to best describe the condition of my teeth. Their  viewing angle is clearly better. It has nothing to do with superior morals.
> You're just pissed since I caught you Godwinning something last week. Ignore the point then. I write for the benefit of others anyway, not for hopelessly self-deluded wackos like you.
Click to expand...





1. Got it. So, not only do you dismiss white interests, but you consider any belief in white interest to be "Racist".  So, all you push back when I said you "dismissed white interests", why did you instead not just honestly say that, instead of denying it?


2. It is not racist to discuss white interests, nor to even advocate for them. All groups have moral and legal right to have their interests and to pursue them in the political realm. That you think that whites are special and for some reason DON'T have that right, is just another facet of your belief that whites are morally inferior to other racial groups. IE, your anti-white racism.


3. Race relations in this country are two way streets. It is not just "their situation". You defer to blacks and you dismiss whites. Based on race. That is racism from you.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.
> 
> 2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm white (for census purposes) and I have interests. I don't have "white interests." Only asshole racists like you think you have "white interests."
> I defer to some minority members to best describe their own situation just as I defer to my dentist to best describe the condition of my teeth. Their  viewing angle is clearly better. It has nothing to do with superior morals.
> You're just pissed since I caught you Godwinning something last week. Ignore the point then. I write for the benefit of others anyway, not for hopelessly self-deluded wackos like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. So, not only do you dismiss white interests, but you consider any belief in white interest to be "Racist".  So, all you push back when I said you "dismissed white interests", why did you instead not just honestly say that, instead of denying it?
> 
> 
> 2. It is not racist to discuss white interests, nor to even advocate for them. All groups have moral and legal right to have their interests and to pursue them in the political realm. That you think that whites are special and for some reason DON'T have that right, is just another facet of your belief that whites are morally inferior to other racial groups. IE, your anti-white racism.
> 
> 
> 3. Race relations in this country are two way streets. It is not just "their situation". You defer to blacks and you dismiss whites. Based on race. That is racism from you.
Click to expand...

Go right ahead then, Einstein. Grab your nuts and list all these lovely "white interests" of yours..


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


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



Or t


Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Who's the racist?
Click to expand...



Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.

Which I am fine with.


Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.

There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.

That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.

Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
Click to expand...

Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
Click to expand...

*"No, I did not. "*

The fuck you didn't.

_"And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"_​


----------



## Grumblenuts

(Crap. YouTube videos not working now)


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.
> 
> 2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm white (for census purposes) and I have interests. I don't have "white interests." Only asshole racists like you think you have "white interests."
> I defer to some minority members to best describe their own situation just as I defer to my dentist to best describe the condition of my teeth. Their  viewing angle is clearly better. It has nothing to do with superior morals.
> You're just pissed since I caught you Godwinning something last week. Ignore the point then. I write for the benefit of others anyway, not for hopelessly self-deluded wackos like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. So, not only do you dismiss white interests, but you consider any belief in white interest to be "Racist".  So, all you push back when I said you "dismissed white interests", why did you instead not just honestly say that, instead of denying it?
> 
> 
> 2. It is not racist to discuss white interests, nor to even advocate for them. All groups have moral and legal right to have their interests and to pursue them in the political realm. That you think that whites are special and for some reason DON'T have that right, is just another facet of your belief that whites are morally inferior to other racial groups. IE, your anti-white racism.
> 
> 
> 3. Race relations in this country are two way streets. It is not just "their situation". You defer to blacks and you dismiss whites. Based on race. That is racism from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go right ahead then, Einstein. Grab your nuts and list all these lovely "white interests" of yours..
Click to expand...



I'll be glad to give you a good example, for discussion purposes, after you explain to me, why you did not just state initially, that you do not believe that whites have interests and that stating that whites have interests is, in your view, racist?


I mean, other groups have interests, right? Blacks for one random example, you dont' have a problem with some black man, advocating for Black interests do you?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
Click to expand...



Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.


And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.


you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.
> 
> 2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm white (for census purposes) and I have interests. I don't have "white interests." Only asshole racists like you think you have "white interests."
> I defer to some minority members to best describe their own situation just as I defer to my dentist to best describe the condition of my teeth. Their  viewing angle is clearly better. It has nothing to do with superior morals.
> You're just pissed since I caught you Godwinning something last week. Ignore the point then. I write for the benefit of others anyway, not for hopelessly self-deluded wackos like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. So, not only do you dismiss white interests, but you consider any belief in white interest to be "Racist".  So, all you push back when I said you "dismissed white interests", why did you instead not just honestly say that, instead of denying it?
> 
> 
> 2. It is not racist to discuss white interests, nor to even advocate for them. All groups have moral and legal right to have their interests and to pursue them in the political realm. That you think that whites are special and for some reason DON'T have that right, is just another facet of your belief that whites are morally inferior to other racial groups. IE, your anti-white racism.
> 
> 
> 3. Race relations in this country are two way streets. It is not just "their situation". You defer to blacks and you dismiss whites. Based on race. That is racism from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go right ahead then, Einstein. Grab your nuts and list all these lovely "white interests" of yours..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be glad to give you a good example, for discussion purposes, after you explain to me, why you did not just state initially, that you do not believe that whites have interests and that stating that whites have interests is, in your view, racist?
> 
> 
> I mean, other groups have interests, right? Blacks for one random example, you dont' have a problem with some black man, advocating for Black interests do you?
Click to expand...


Yeah, funny thing. Somehow I always find myself far more interested in what the guy with the boot on his neck has to say about the situation than the one wearing the boot.  Underdog fetish perhaps..?

Meanwhile.. stop pussy footing around and list your precious "white interests" already..


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
Click to expand...




Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".


But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic. 


Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.


But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then it would have been likely. Or at least, he would have made a good showing. But in today's racially divided political climate? I just don't know.
> 
> There's no doubt in my mind that most Republicans would vote for Powell today, provided he still held to the conservative values he held back then (some say he leans a little more left today than he did then. I don't know, myself). But, I'm no political science expert but it seems to me that most elections are not won or lost by party members strictly voting their party. A lot of elections swing on convincing the fence-sitters and in today's racially charged atmosphere, a lot of erstwhile black fence-sitters are leaning left because other blacks and many liberal whites are screaming racial dogma at them that if they don't vote Democrat, they are selling out and betraying their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not "racially divided" in that whites are angry at blacks. We are angry at Liberals who keep attacking us on various bullshit reasons.
> 
> 
> All any black republican candidate would have to do, is demonstrate somehow that they are not part of that group, and they would not be judged as part of that group.
> 
> 
> It would be easy.  The most obvious way to do it, would be in the primaries to speak out in DEFENSE of one of his primary opponents, who were falsely accused of racism by some moron, for attacking him.
> 
> 
> It would demonstrate that he was disagreeing with his opponents on policy, but not calling him "racists" for disagreeing with a black man.
> 
> 
> Obama never said that. Or if he did, he did not mean it. Right there, any fence sitters would  know, that the black republican was NOT one of the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be absolutely right. Question is: would it happen this way? Would a black Republican be able to sway the black fence-sitter? I don't know. But I do know it would be more of a challenge today than say, twenty years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, that fact that Powell would NOT be swaying the BLACK fence sitters so much as WHITE fence sitters, or more commonly referred to Reagan Democrats, would have been a GOOD thing.
> 
> 
> It would have made the milestone of  the "First Black President" STRONGER, for him to have been elected primarily by whites instead of by high black turnout.
> 
> 
> Indeed, the idea that a BLACK republican's job, would be to  appeal to BLACK voters, is buying into the identity politics of the Left.
> 
> 
> Powell's big assets were his connection to Reagan and his military background, especially the win he got some credit for, in The Persian Gulf War.
> 
> 
> Not his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from (or maybe I'm misunderstanding where you are coming from). I don't buy into identity politics any more than you. I don't think skin color should be a factor in _anything_. But unfortunately, this is the political climate we find ourselves in and the left is largely responsible for this.
> 
> I think a black nominee should campaign solely on a political platform and not make race an issue. I don't think he should try to win black fence-sitters on anything but that. However, race is very much an issue for a lot of blacks and I'm afraid they would assess a black nominee based on what he says along those lines.
> 
> It's not a reality I agree with or care for but it is reality nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, a black republican would be heard by white fence sitters mostly pretty fine.
> 
> I would love to see the funny pretzel logic the libs would have to  come up with, to justify calling us Racist in such a scenario.
Click to expand...


Actually, I agree. I don't think white fence-sitters would be a real concern. The concern would be the black fence-sitters as it would depend on how they would respond to Democrat blacks telling them they would be selling out if they voted Republican.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
Click to expand...



So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.


Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
Click to expand...


Right, the fuck I didn't.

_



			"And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
		
Click to expand...

_​
Quoted out of context. How original.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.
> 
> 2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm white (for census purposes) and I have interests. I don't have "white interests." Only asshole racists like you think you have "white interests."
> I defer to some minority members to best describe their own situation just as I defer to my dentist to best describe the condition of my teeth. Their  viewing angle is clearly better. It has nothing to do with superior morals.
> You're just pissed since I caught you Godwinning something last week. Ignore the point then. I write for the benefit of others anyway, not for hopelessly self-deluded wackos like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. So, not only do you dismiss white interests, but you consider any belief in white interest to be "Racist".  So, all you push back when I said you "dismissed white interests", why did you instead not just honestly say that, instead of denying it?
> 
> 
> 2. It is not racist to discuss white interests, nor to even advocate for them. All groups have moral and legal right to have their interests and to pursue them in the political realm. That you think that whites are special and for some reason DON'T have that right, is just another facet of your belief that whites are morally inferior to other racial groups. IE, your anti-white racism.
> 
> 
> 3. Race relations in this country are two way streets. It is not just "their situation". You defer to blacks and you dismiss whites. Based on race. That is racism from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go right ahead then, Einstein. Grab your nuts and list all these lovely "white interests" of yours..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be glad to give you a good example, for discussion purposes, after you explain to me, why you did not just state initially, that you do not believe that whites have interests and that stating that whites have interests is, in your view, racist?
> 
> 
> I mean, other groups have interests, right? Blacks for one random example, you dont' have a problem with some black man, advocating for Black interests do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, funny thing. Somehow I always find myself far more interested in what the guy with the boot on his neck has to say about the situation than the one wearing the boot.  Underdog fetish perhaps..?
> 
> Meanwhile.. stop pussy footing around and list your precious "white interests" already..
Click to expand...



And how is that not Moral Superiority?


And I'm not pussyfooting around. The point of whether or not Whites have the right to have Interests is obviously relevant to what those interests might be.


Indeed, asking for details on the interests, when you are opposed to the very idea of such interests and indeed, consider such discussion racist and taboo, 


is kind of putting the cart before the horse. 



My question stands. HOw is what you describe, not blacks having, in your world view, Moral Superiority, based on their supposed victimhood?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
Click to expand...

^^^ Utter bulllshit.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like ghost talk about quotas only when it pertains to black people.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Idiots like IM2 confuse "I don't want quotas" with "I don't want blacks".
> 
> IM2, I believe you may be suffering a form of comprehension dyslexia. The letters are all in the right place and facing the right way but you always seem to get the meaning backwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he doesn't consider 100 percent white a quota.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 100 per cent is not a quota dumbass. And the Republican party is not 100 per cent white anyway.
> 
> Quota - 1: A _proportional_ part or share.
> 2: The number or amount constituting a _proportional_ share.
> 
> Look it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly there are black republicans who are not right wing. Conservatives have no place in todays republican party, the leadership are right wing extremists and the blacks they champion are right wing black stooges.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Opinion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you think that COlin Powell would not have won the 96 election?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Back then it would have been likely. Or at least, he would have made a good showing. But in today's racially divided political climate? I just don't know.
> 
> There's no doubt in my mind that most Republicans would vote for Powell today, provided he still held to the conservative values he held back then (some say he leans a little more left today than he did then. I don't know, myself). But, I'm no political science expert but it seems to me that most elections are not won or lost by party members strictly voting their party. A lot of elections swing on convincing the fence-sitters and in today's racially charged atmosphere, a lot of erstwhile black fence-sitters are leaning left because other blacks and many liberal whites are screaming racial dogma at them that if they don't vote Democrat, they are selling out and betraying their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> We are not "racially divided" in that whites are angry at blacks. We are angry at Liberals who keep attacking us on various bullshit reasons.
> 
> 
> All any black republican candidate would have to do, is demonstrate somehow that they are not part of that group, and they would not be judged as part of that group.
> 
> 
> It would be easy.  The most obvious way to do it, would be in the primaries to speak out in DEFENSE of one of his primary opponents, who were falsely accused of racism by some moron, for attacking him.
> 
> 
> It would demonstrate that he was disagreeing with his opponents on policy, but not calling him "racists" for disagreeing with a black man.
> 
> 
> Obama never said that. Or if he did, he did not mean it. Right there, any fence sitters would  know, that the black republican was NOT one of the assholes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You may be absolutely right. Question is: would it happen this way? Would a black Republican be able to sway the black fence-sitter? I don't know. But I do know it would be more of a challenge today than say, twenty years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, that fact that Powell would NOT be swaying the BLACK fence sitters so much as WHITE fence sitters, or more commonly referred to Reagan Democrats, would have been a GOOD thing.
> 
> 
> It would have made the milestone of  the "First Black President" STRONGER, for him to have been elected primarily by whites instead of by high black turnout.
> 
> 
> Indeed, the idea that a BLACK republican's job, would be to  appeal to BLACK voters, is buying into the identity politics of the Left.
> 
> 
> Powell's big assets were his connection to Reagan and his military background, especially the win he got some credit for, in The Persian Gulf War.
> 
> 
> Not his skin color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you may be misunderstanding where I'm coming from (or maybe I'm misunderstanding where you are coming from). I don't buy into identity politics any more than you. I don't think skin color should be a factor in _anything_. But unfortunately, this is the political climate we find ourselves in and the left is largely responsible for this.
> 
> I think a black nominee should campaign solely on a political platform and not make race an issue. I don't think he should try to win black fence-sitters on anything but that. However, race is very much an issue for a lot of blacks and I'm afraid they would assess a black nominee based on what he says along those lines.
> 
> It's not a reality I agree with or care for but it is reality nonetheless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, a black republican would be heard by white fence sitters mostly pretty fine.
> 
> I would love to see the funny pretzel logic the libs would have to  come up with, to justify calling us Racist in such a scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I agree. I don't think white fence-sitters would be a real concern. The concern would be the black fence-sitters as it would depend on how they would respond to Democrat blacks telling them they would be selling out if they voted Republican.
Click to expand...




Which is how it always is, so normal, ie NOT a concern. 


Funny, in that it would be funny to see the white libs telling conservative black voters, that it would be racist of them to vote for the black guy that more closely matches their policies, than the white guy.

Very funny, 

But not a matter of concern.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
Click to expand...



See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.


And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.


And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".

Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.


FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.


Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
Click to expand...


Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities. 

In order to graduate, one must first be admitted. 

Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
Click to expand...


I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
Click to expand...

I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
Click to expand...

That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities.
> 
> In order to graduate, one must first be admitted.
> 
> Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.
Click to expand...



And you want to pretend that "financial reasons" must be "racism" when it is more likely the result of having a single parent.


So, once again,  you look to avoid looking at the actual reasons for a difference, and just try to get people to assume "racism".


Ironically, demonstrating and validating my point. 



RIght INSIDE of your attempt to counterpoint my point.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.
> 
> 
> And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.
> 
> 
> And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".
> 
> Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.
> 
> 
> FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.
> 
> 
> Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.
Click to expand...

*"Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it. "*

That is utter bullshit. The only accusations of racism I point out are not almost always bullshit. They are never bullshit. I wouldn't levy such claims if I didn't believe them and couldn't back them up.

*"FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF. Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole. "*

LOL

Fuck off, triggered bitch.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
Click to expand...


You said I admitted to it dumbass.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
Click to expand...




YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".


That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable. 



You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?


LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.


You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.

Your call.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.
> 
> 
> And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.
> 
> 
> And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".
> 
> Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.
> 
> 
> FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.
> 
> 
> Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it. "*
> 
> That is utter bullshit. The only accusations of racism I point out are not almost always bullshit. They are never bullshit. I wouldn't levy such claims if I didn't believe them and couldn't back them up.
> 
> *"FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF. Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole. "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Fuck off, triggered bitch.
Click to expand...




You are a race baiting asshole.  Being pissed off at a person being a complete fucking asshole, is not being "triggered" you fucking moron.


FUCK YOU SOME MORE.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities.
> 
> In order to graduate, one must first be admitted.
> 
> Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to pretend that "financial reasons" must be "racism" when it is more likely the result of having a single parent.
> 
> 
> So, once again,  you look to avoid looking at the actual reasons for a difference, and just try to get people to assume "racism".
> 
> 
> Ironically, demonstrating and validating my point.
> 
> 
> 
> RIght INSIDE of your attempt to counterpoint my point.
Click to expand...


I did not "validate" your point, because you didn't really have one. 



Furthermore, there is no reason for me to "pretend" regarding an actual fact. 

Citing "financial hardship" is a far cry from citing  the "racism", that you are attempting to spin my words as.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
Click to expand...




The race baiting asshole has bogged the thread down into a pointless argument over who said what when. IF you keep pushing it will turn into a point of semantics.


This is a standard defense technique when the leftard troll realizes that have been utterly defeated, and they have to bury the thread in static in an attempt to hide the Truth.


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_

When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities.
> 
> In order to graduate, one must first be admitted.
> 
> Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to pretend that "financial reasons" must be "racism" when it is more likely the result of having a single parent.
> 
> 
> So, once again,  you look to avoid looking at the actual reasons for a difference, and just try to get people to assume "racism".
> 
> 
> Ironically, demonstrating and validating my point.
> 
> 
> 
> RIght INSIDE of your attempt to counterpoint my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not "validate" your point, because you didn't really have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, there is no reason for me to "pretend" regarding an actual fact.
> 
> Citing "financial hardship" is a far cry from citing  the "racism", that you are attempting to spin my words as.
Click to expand...





You brought up the rate of white males in management, as though that proved that blacks are not discriminated in favor of.


IF, blacks are less qualified, then blacks SHOULD be less represented in management. 


And indeed, it would be completely possible for blacks to be discriminated in favor of, to a great extent and yet, the impact of that discrimination to be hidden by the impact of the lower qualifications of the blacks.



The anti-white discrimination is still happening, despite the outcome you cited.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
Click to expand...




That is the whole point of this whole thread. YOu obviously believe it, and you are just playing stupid sophist games now. 


You are a race baiting asshole.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
Click to expand...

*"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*

So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?

*"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*

You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???

Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.
> 
> 
> And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.
> 
> 
> And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".
> 
> Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.
> 
> 
> FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.
> 
> 
> Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it. "*
> 
> That is utter bullshit. The only accusations of racism I point out are not almost always bullshit. They are never bullshit. I wouldn't levy such claims if I didn't believe them and couldn't back them up.
> 
> *"FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF. Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole. "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Fuck off, triggered bitch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are a race baiting asshole.  Being pissed off at a person being a complete fucking asshole, is not being "triggered" you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> FUCK YOU SOME MORE.
Click to expand...

*"FUCK YOU SOME MORE. "*

LOL


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.
> 
> 2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm white (for census purposes) and I have interests. I don't have "white interests." Only asshole racists like you think you have "white interests."
> I defer to some minority members to best describe their own situation just as I defer to my dentist to best describe the condition of my teeth. Their  viewing angle is clearly better. It has nothing to do with superior morals.
> You're just pissed since I caught you Godwinning something last week. Ignore the point then. I write for the benefit of others anyway, not for hopelessly self-deluded wackos like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. So, not only do you dismiss white interests, but you consider any belief in white interest to be "Racist".  So, all you push back when I said you "dismissed white interests", why did you instead not just honestly say that, instead of denying it?
> 
> 
> 2. It is not racist to discuss white interests, nor to even advocate for them. All groups have moral and legal right to have their interests and to pursue them in the political realm. That you think that whites are special and for some reason DON'T have that right, is just another facet of your belief that whites are morally inferior to other racial groups. IE, your anti-white racism.
> 
> 
> 3. Race relations in this country are two way streets. It is not just "their situation". You defer to blacks and you dismiss whites. Based on race. That is racism from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go right ahead then, Einstein. Grab your nuts and list all these lovely "white interests" of yours..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be glad to give you a good example, for discussion purposes, after you explain to me, why you did not just state initially, that you do not believe that whites have interests and that stating that whites have interests is, in your view, racist?
> 
> 
> I mean, other groups have interests, right? Blacks for one random example, you dont' have a problem with some black man, advocating for Black interests do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, funny thing. Somehow I always find myself far more interested in what the guy with the boot on his neck has to say about the situation than the one wearing the boot.  Underdog fetish perhaps..?
> 
> Meanwhile.. stop pussy footing around and list your precious "white interests" already..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And how is that not Moral Superiority?
> 
> 
> And I'm not pussyfooting around. The point of whether or not Whites have the right to have Interests is obviously relevant to what those interests might be.
> 
> 
> Indeed, asking for details on the interests, when you are opposed to the very idea of such interests and indeed, consider such discussion racist and taboo,
> 
> 
> is kind of putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> 
> 
> My question stands. HOw is what you describe, not blacks having, in your world view, Moral Superiority, based on their supposed victimhood?
Click to expand...

You keep digging and getting nowhere fast instead of just supporting YOUR claim of "white interests." YOU now adding claims of  "Moral Superiority" and "black victimhood" just makes you smell more and more like a desperate white supremacist. 

YOU've been banging on about "white interests" this entire time. Do you have any or not? If so, please list them now for all to see..


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the whole point of this whole thread. YOu obviously believe it, and you are just playing stupid sophist games now.
> 
> 
> You are a race baiting asshole.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, that moron ascribed something to me I didn't actually say -- and I called him out on it. Youcan deny it, but it's clear you are easily triggered.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
Click to expand...




Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.


Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes. 










						Colin Powell - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. And you are using it to dismiss whites and white interests, with an implication that we are wealthy and white and thus our concerns are not to be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> You  just make shit up. I'm white. I have "interests." I speak for me. I don't try to to speak for you because I'm not an asshole. You don't get to speak for me. You inferring "implications" to argue with yourself about is as pathetic as pathetic gets.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. That the justification for your assumption of blacks being morally superior
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all you just making shit up again. I never said anything of the sort. Asshole.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. And that you would Godwin your fellow American whites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There ya go girl! Clutch them pearls, you shameless pansy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What "white" interests do you speak out for? Pick one for discussion purposes. ONE, your freaking moron. No gish gallop bullshit.
> 
> 2. You "defer" to them, on certain, very large and important issues, because you believe their experiences and minority perspective, give them a better understanding that you, a white man operating from a position of "privilege" can have. That is a form of Moral Superiority. For one Race to be superior to your own race. You are an anti-white racist.
> 
> 3. There is nothing "pansy" about calling you out for insulting US, by comparing and to some extent even equating our treatment of blacks to the Nazis treatment of Jews. You are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm white (for census purposes) and I have interests. I don't have "white interests." Only asshole racists like you think you have "white interests."
> I defer to some minority members to best describe their own situation just as I defer to my dentist to best describe the condition of my teeth. Their  viewing angle is clearly better. It has nothing to do with superior morals.
> You're just pissed since I caught you Godwinning something last week. Ignore the point then. I write for the benefit of others anyway, not for hopelessly self-deluded wackos like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. So, not only do you dismiss white interests, but you consider any belief in white interest to be "Racist".  So, all you push back when I said you "dismissed white interests", why did you instead not just honestly say that, instead of denying it?
> 
> 
> 2. It is not racist to discuss white interests, nor to even advocate for them. All groups have moral and legal right to have their interests and to pursue them in the political realm. That you think that whites are special and for some reason DON'T have that right, is just another facet of your belief that whites are morally inferior to other racial groups. IE, your anti-white racism.
> 
> 
> 3. Race relations in this country are two way streets. It is not just "their situation". You defer to blacks and you dismiss whites. Based on race. That is racism from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go right ahead then, Einstein. Grab your nuts and list all these lovely "white interests" of yours..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be glad to give you a good example, for discussion purposes, after you explain to me, why you did not just state initially, that you do not believe that whites have interests and that stating that whites have interests is, in your view, racist?
> 
> 
> I mean, other groups have interests, right? Blacks for one random example, you dont' have a problem with some black man, advocating for Black interests do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, funny thing. Somehow I always find myself far more interested in what the guy with the boot on his neck has to say about the situation than the one wearing the boot.  Underdog fetish perhaps..?
> 
> Meanwhile.. stop pussy footing around and list your precious "white interests" already..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And how is that not Moral Superiority?
> 
> 
> And I'm not pussyfooting around. The point of whether or not Whites have the right to have Interests is obviously relevant to what those interests might be.
> 
> 
> Indeed, asking for details on the interests, when you are opposed to the very idea of such interests and indeed, consider such discussion racist and taboo,
> 
> 
> is kind of putting the cart before the horse.
> 
> 
> 
> My question stands. HOw is what you describe, not blacks having, in your world view, Moral Superiority, based on their supposed victimhood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep digging and getting nowhere fast instead of just supporting YOUR claim of "white interests." YOU now adding claims of  "Moral Superiority" and "black victimhood" just makes you smell more and more like a desperate white supremacist.
> 
> YOU've been banging on about "white interests" this entire time. Do you have any or not? If so, please list them now for all to see..
Click to expand...




As I said, discussing an example is putting the cart before the horse, if you believe that whites, as a group, do not have or do not have the right to have interests.


I am not "adding claims of Moral Superiority" YOu are, when you argue the it is morally acceptable for blacks to have interests but not whites. 


That is different rules for different groups based on race.


ie racism.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the whole point of this whole thread. YOu obviously believe it, and you are just playing stupid sophist games now.
> 
> 
> You are a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, that moron ascribed something to me I didn't actually say -- and I called him out on it. Youcan deny it, but it's clear you are easily triggered.
Click to expand...




YOu are a race baiting asshole, actively attempting to bog the thread down in semantics to distract from how much your ass has been kicked.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL

Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the whole point of this whole thread. YOu obviously believe it, and you are just playing stupid sophist games now.
> 
> 
> You are a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, that moron ascribed something to me I didn't actually say -- and I called him out on it. Youcan deny it, but it's clear you are easily triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are a race baiting asshole, actively attempting to bog the thread down in semantics to distract from how much your ass has been kicked.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, defending myself fro your fellow dumbfucks who misquote me and lie about what I say is not "semantics." You'll note that idiot was unable to quote me saying what he claimed I said. You're truly an abject imbecile.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
Click to expand...




Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.


That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the whole point of this whole thread. YOu obviously believe it, and you are just playing stupid sophist games now.
> 
> 
> You are a race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, that moron ascribed something to me I didn't actually say -- and I called him out on it. Youcan deny it, but it's clear you are easily triggered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are a race baiting asshole, actively attempting to bog the thread down in semantics to distract from how much your ass has been kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, defending myself fro your fellow dumbfucks who misquote me and lie about what I say is not "semantics." You'll note that idiot was unable to quote me saying what he claimed I said. You're truly an abject imbecile.
Click to expand...



Hard to be sympathetic to a race baiter who may or may not have been misquoted. 


YOur lies are vile. IF ghost made an error, I'm sure it was not intentional and not harmful.


YOu spend all day spreading poison to the nation.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> View attachment 314355




What will you do, when people start fighting back?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
Click to expand...

Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running. 

Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
Click to expand...


_"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_

So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?

So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.
> 
> 
> And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.
> 
> 
> And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".
> 
> Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.
> 
> 
> FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.
> 
> 
> Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it. "*
> 
> That is utter bullshit. The only accusations of racism I point out are not almost always bullshit. They are never bullshit. I wouldn't levy such claims if I didn't believe them and couldn't back them up.
> 
> *"FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF. Eat a big old pil*
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities.
> 
> In order to graduate, one must first be admitted.
> 
> Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to pretend that "financial reasons" must be "racism" when it is more likely the result of having a single parent.
> 
> 
> So, once again,  you look to avoid looking at the actual reasons for a difference, and just try to get people to assume "racism".
> 
> 
> Ironically, demonstrating and validating my point.
> 
> 
> 
> RIght INSIDE of your attempt to counterpoint my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not "validate" your point, because you didn't really have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, there is no reason for me to "pretend" regarding an actual fact.
> 
> Citing "financial hardship" is a far cry from citing  the "racism", that you are attempting to spin my words as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up the rate of white males in management, as though that proved that blacks are not discriminated in favor of.
> 
> 
> IF, blacks are less qualified, then blacks SHOULD be less represented in management.
> 
> 
> And indeed, it would be completely possible for blacks to be discriminated in favor of, to a great extent and yet, the impact of that discrimination to be hidden by the impact of the lower qualifications of the blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-white discrimination is still happening, despite the outcome you cited.
Click to expand...





What that statistic proves is that white males are not being being discriminated against on a mass scale as you claim, in favor of blacks 


in the workforce, nor are they in college admissions.



Are you actually of the belief that they are?

If so, what other measurements except for statistical data proves your point? 

Isolated cases of some angry white person who believes that any black person that is admitted to a university or selected for a job "had to be at the expense of a more "deserving" white male?

White males are far more likely, if they were passed over, to have been passed over in order to accept or hire a white female.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
Click to expand...



Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.


The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.


That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.
> 
> 
> And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.
> 
> 
> And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".
> 
> Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.
> 
> 
> FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.
> 
> 
> Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it. "*
> 
> That is utter bullshit. The only accusations of racism I point out are not almost always bullshit. They are never bullshit. I wouldn't levy such claims if I didn't believe them and couldn't back them up.
> 
> *"FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF. Eat a big old pil*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities.
> 
> In order to graduate, one must first be admitted.
> 
> Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to pretend that "financial reasons" must be "racism" when it is more likely the result of having a single parent.
> 
> 
> So, once again,  you look to avoid looking at the actual reasons for a difference, and just try to get people to assume "racism".
> 
> 
> Ironically, demonstrating and validating my point.
> 
> 
> 
> RIght INSIDE of your attempt to counterpoint my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not "validate" your point, because you didn't really have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, there is no reason for me to "pretend" regarding an actual fact.
> 
> Citing "financial hardship" is a far cry from citing  the "racism", that you are attempting to spin my words as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up the rate of white males in management, as though that proved that blacks are not discriminated in favor of.
> 
> 
> IF, blacks are less qualified, then blacks SHOULD be less represented in management.
> 
> 
> And indeed, it would be completely possible for blacks to be discriminated in favor of, to a great extent and yet, the impact of that discrimination to be hidden by the impact of the lower qualifications of the blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-white discrimination is still happening, despite the outcome you cited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What that statistic proves is that white males are not being being discriminated against on a mass scale as you claim, in favor of blacks View attachment 314357
> in the workforce, nor are they in college admissions.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually of the belief that they are?
> 
> If so, what other measurements except for statistical data proves your point?
> 
> Isolated cases of some angry white person who believes that any black person that is admitted to a university or selected for a job "had to be at the expense of a more "deserving" white male?
> 
> White males are far more likely, if they were passed over, to have been passed over in order to accept or hire a white female.
Click to expand...




Data that compares the qualifications of the people being selected, and does not make self serving assumptions about the reasons for outcomes.


Such as the massive 300 point bonus that blacks get in Ivy League Admissions.


YOur denial of this well documented fact, is not good. It does not reflect well on you.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
Click to expand...




What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that? 


What a loser. 


Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
Click to expand...


I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> As I said, discussing an example is putting the cart before the horse, if you believe that whites, as a group, do not have or do not have the right to have interests.


Once again, I am "white" according to the Census (demographically). I, like everyone else, also have "interests." I do not have "white interests" far as I can tell. You claim to have "white interests." I'm wondering what they could be. You can certainly claim having as many as you like along with some "right" to have them. No one's been stopping you but you.


Correll said:


> I am not "adding claims of Moral Superiority" YOu are, when you argue the it is morally acceptable for blacks to have interests but not whites.
> 
> 
> That is different rules for different groups based on race.
> 
> 
> ie racism.


I've argued no such thing, you shameless liar, and "different rules for different groups based on race" is not any definition of racism. You just keep making shit up for yourself to argue with again and again.  Now stop fucking around and list your wondrous "white interests"..


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
Click to expand...

I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

And by getting my ass kicked, your big claim is that Republicans would elect a black man who never wanted to be president.


----------



## Faun

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.
Click to expand...

If you're arguing with something I never said then you're arguing with yourself -- and losing.


----------



## Grumblenuts

We got an orange clown instead who never thought he'd win. Powell would have gotten the Bernie treatment by the GOP, no doubt.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're arguing with something I never said then you're arguing with yourself -- and losing.
Click to expand...


Do you not yet grasp the fact that you thanked me for admitting that many people on the right are racist and that I do not agree that I said or implied this?


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.
Click to expand...




But how can they not make the connection, that if they have to employ such evasive techniques, that that means they are wrong?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> evasive techniques





Grumblenuts said:


> Now stop fucking around and list your wondrous "white interests"..


_Crickets..._

Beginning to suspect you don't really have any...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But how can they not make the connection, that if they have to employ such evasive techniques, that that means they are wrong?
Click to expand...


Two words: Cognitive Dissonance.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, discussing an example is putting the cart before the horse, if you believe that whites, as a group, do not have or do not have the right to have interests.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I am "white" according to the Census (demographically). I, like everyone else, also have "interests." I do not have "white interests" far as I can tell. You claim to have "white interests." I'm wondering what they could be. You can certainly claim having as many as you like along with some "right" to have them. No one's been stopping you but you.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not "adding claims of Moral Superiority" YOu are, when you argue the it is morally acceptable for blacks to have interests but not whites.
> 
> 
> That is different rules for different groups based on race.
> 
> 
> ie racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've argued no such thing, you shameless liar, and "different rules for different groups based on race" is not any definition of racism. You just keep making shit up for yourself to argue with again and again.  Now stop fucking around and list your wondrous "white interests"..
Click to expand...




1.  But you do not self identify as "white" not as a member of a group who's interest you want to advance. Indeed, you want to deny them the option of even stating that they have rights. You are arguing against the idea that as a group, they do o should have interests. 


2. Other groups, other races, of course, are allowed to have interests. Is that not your position?

3.  If you support policy, that blacks can have interests, and work politically to advance them, but whites cannot, then that is racism. 


4. It does not make sense to want an example when you reject the very validity of the concept. Hell,  you are stating the concept as though saying the words together is an argument against it. You are so racist that you think white people wanting good things for white people is racims.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
Click to expand...



When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.


And that refutes the point of the op.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> And by getting my ass kicked, your big claim is that Republicans would elect a black man who never wanted to be president.
Click to expand...



Would HAVE, yes. The data is clear. The claim the the reason for the lack of black republican presidents, being "racism" is demonstrated to be incorrect.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're arguing with something I never said then you're arguing with yourself -- and losing.
Click to expand...



YOu having a hissy fit over such a minor quibble, is pathetic. You are just trying to distract from how much you have gotten your ass handed to you.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> evasive techniques
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now stop fucking around and list your wondrous "white interests"..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Crickets..._
> 
> Beginning to suspect you don't really have any...
Click to expand...



Got plenty. But it is putting the cart before the horse to discuss details where you are opposed to white people having interests at all.

I have repeatedly asked you it if ok in your view for black people to have interests, as a group. You have been vague at best and mostly just ignored my question.


I ask again.


Do you support Black People having and advocating for Black Interests?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> We got an orange clown instead who never thought he'd win. Powell would have gotten the Bernie treatment by the GOP, no doubt.




1. And the lib when pressed, will resort with more shit throwing. Drop it. Don't throw shit like a fucking monkey.

2. I'm not sure what you mean by the Bernie Treatment. But Powell was loved by the Establishment types. He was nice and moderate, on issues. I mean, it was Dole's turn, but they would not have circled the wagons and gone full scorched earth to stop Powell, the way the dem leadership has with Bernie. If that is what you mean.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> 1. But you do not self identify as "white" not as a member of a group who's interest you want to advance.


Why would I given:


> I do not have "white interests" far as I can tell.


Talk about putting carts before horses!


Correll said:


> Indeed, you want to deny them the option of even stating that they have rights. You are arguing against the idea that as a group, they do o should have interests.


Great, so quote me saying so or just STFU already. Here's what you're supposedly responding to and WHAT I ACTUALLY JUST SAID:


> You can certainly claim having as many as you like along with some "right" to have them. No one's been stopping you but you.





Correll said:


> 2. Other groups, other races, of course, are allowed to have interests. Is that not your position?


YAWN. Obviously..


Correll said:


> 3. If you support policy, that blacks can have interests, and work politically to advance them, but whites cannot, then that is racism.


This is you, talking nonsense to yourself, obliviously, yet again. Ground already covered.


> You can certainly claim having as many as you like along with some "right" to have them. No one's been stopping you but you.





Correll said:


> 4. It does not make sense to want an example when you reject the very validity of the concept.


I haven't, fuckwit. Quit lying to yourself like this. It's embarrassing. I haven't requested "an example" either. I want every "white interest" you've got. I have not stuttered.


Correll said:


> Hell, you are stating the concept as though saying the words together is an argument against it.


Oh, "stating the concept as though"? Fuck you. Quit making shit up and being such a dick. Argue with what I've actually said or admit to having nothing.


Correll said:


> You are so racist that you think white people wanting good things for white people is racims.


You're full of shit. Now the list please..


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. But you do not self identify as "white" not as a member of a group who's interest you want to advance.
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I given:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not have "white interests" far as I can tell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Talk about putting carts before horses!
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed, you want to deny them the option of even stating that they have rights. You are arguing against the idea that as a group, they do o should have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so quote me saying so or just STFU already. Here's what you're supposedly responding to and WHAT I ACTUALLY JUST SAID:
> 
> 
> 
> You can certainly claim having as many as you like along with some "right" to have them. No one's been stopping you but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Other groups, other races, of course, are allowed to have interests. Is that not your position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> YAWN. Obviously..
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. If you support policy, that blacks can have interests, and work politically to advance them, but whites cannot, then that is racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is you, talking nonsense to yourself, obliviously, yet again. Ground already covered.
> 
> 
> 
> You can certainly claim having as many as you like along with some "right" to have them. No one's been stopping you but you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. It does not make sense to want an example when you reject the very validity of the concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't, fuckwit. Quit lying to yourself like this. It's embarrassing. I haven't requested "an example" either. I want every "white interest" you got. I have not stuttered.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, you are stating the concept as though saying the words together is an argument against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, "stating the concept as though"? Fuck you. Quit making shit up and being such a dick. Argue with what I've actually said or admit to having nothing.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are so racist that you think white people wanting good things for white people is racims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're full of shit. Now the list please..
Click to expand...




1. Your hostility to the idea of white interests is clear. You attacked and ridiculed me for even stating that whites have interests as a group.

2. YOu are now walking it back.

3. TO lists I prefer examples. Lists are what you get when monkeys throw shit at each other, with no real discussion of the issue(s). Representative examples, let you really examine an issue seriously.


----------



## Grumblenuts

i.e. other than crying you've got bupkis.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314355
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will you do, when people start fighting back?
Click to expand...


Fighting


Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.
> 
> 
> And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.
> 
> 
> And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".
> 
> Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.
> 
> 
> FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.
> 
> 
> Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it. "*
> 
> That is utter bullshit. The only accusations of racism I point out are not almost always bullshit. They are never bullshit. I wouldn't levy such claims if I didn't believe them and couldn't back them up.
> 
> *"FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF. Eat a big old pil*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities.
> 
> In order to graduate, one must first be admitted.
> 
> Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to pretend that "financial reasons" must be "racism" when it is more likely the result of having a single parent.
> 
> 
> So, once again,  you look to avoid looking at the actual reasons for a difference, and just try to get people to assume "racism".
> 
> 
> Ironically, demonstrating and validating my point.
> 
> 
> 
> RIght INSIDE of your attempt to counterpoint my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not "validate" your point, because you didn't really have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, there is no reason for me to "pretend" regarding an actual fact.
> 
> Citing "financial hardship" is a far cry from citing  the "racism", that you are attempting to spin my words as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up the rate of white males in management, as though that proved that blacks are not discriminated in favor of.
> 
> 
> IF, blacks are less qualified, then blacks SHOULD be less represented in management.
> 
> 
> And indeed, it would be completely possible for blacks to be discriminated in favor of, to a great extent and yet, the impact of that discrimination to be hidden by the impact of the lower qualifications of the blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-white discrimination is still happening, despite the outcome you cited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh
> 
> 
> 
> What that statistic proves is that white males are not being being discriminated against on a mass scale as you claim, in favor of blacks View attachment 314357
> in the workforce, nor are they in college admissions.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually of the belief that they are?
> 
> If so, what other measurements except for statistical data proves your point?
> 
> Isolated cases of some angry white person who believes that any black person that is admitted to a university or selected for a job "had to be at the expense of a more "deserving" white male?
> 
> White males are far more likely, if they were passed over, to have been passed over in order to accept or hire a white female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Data that compares the qualifications of the people being selected, and does not make self serving assumptions about the reasons for outcomes.
> 
> 
> Such as the massive 300 point bonus that blacks get in Ivy League Admissions.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of this well documented fact, is not good. It does not reflect well on you.
Click to expand...



What "reflects well upon me" is irrelevant.
And there is no need for you to  personalize what does or does not. 

To even introduce such nonsense into this conversation is blatantly childish and immature.

But since you interjected such an inane comment, why don't you post some statistics that support your assertion that "blacks" receive preferential treatment in Ivy League universities, and thereby reap the benefits at the expense of you poor, maligned, white "victims" being marginalized, due to such concessions.

And then compare them to the preferential treatment that SOME whites receive due to legacy admissions.

I will await your response.


----------



## Grumblenuts

I hope you're not holding your breath..


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> i.e. other than crying you've got bupkis.




lol!!! Fine let us begin.


#1. Not to be discriminated against to make up for past disadvantages to blacks.


Query: Do you admit that this is a legitimate White Interest?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314355
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will you do, when people start fighting back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fighting
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.
> 
> 
> And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.
> 
> 
> And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".
> 
> Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.
> 
> 
> FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.
> 
> 
> Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it. "*
> 
> That is utter bullshit. The only accusations of racism I point out are not almost always bullshit. They are never bullshit. I wouldn't levy such claims if I didn't believe them and couldn't back them up.
> 
> *"FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF. Eat a big old pil*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities.
> 
> In order to graduate, one must first be admitted.
> 
> Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to pretend that "financial reasons" must be "racism" when it is more likely the result of having a single parent.
> 
> 
> So, once again,  you look to avoid looking at the actual reasons for a difference, and just try to get people to assume "racism".
> 
> 
> Ironically, demonstrating and validating my point.
> 
> 
> 
> RIght INSIDE of your attempt to counterpoint my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not "validate" your point, because you didn't really have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, there is no reason for me to "pretend" regarding an actual fact.
> 
> Citing "financial hardship" is a far cry from citing  the "racism", that you are attempting to spin my words as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up the rate of white males in management, as though that proved that blacks are not discriminated in favor of.
> 
> 
> IF, blacks are less qualified, then blacks SHOULD be less represented in management.
> 
> 
> And indeed, it would be completely possible for blacks to be discriminated in favor of, to a great extent and yet, the impact of that discrimination to be hidden by the impact of the lower qualifications of the blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-white discrimination is still happening, despite the outcome you cited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh
> 
> 
> 
> What that statistic proves is that white males are not being being discriminated against on a mass scale as you claim, in favor of blacks View attachment 314357
> in the workforce, nor are they in college admissions.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually of the belief that they are?
> 
> If so, what other measurements except for statistical data proves your point?
> 
> Isolated cases of some angry white person who believes that any black person that is admitted to a university or selected for a job "had to be at the expense of a more "deserving" white male?
> 
> White males are far more likely, if they were passed over, to have been passed over in order to accept or hire a white female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Data that compares the qualifications of the people being selected, and does not make self serving assumptions about the reasons for outcomes.
> 
> 
> Such as the massive 300 point bonus that blacks get in Ivy League Admissions.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of this well documented fact, is not good. It does not reflect well on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What "reflects well upon me" is irrelevant.
> And there is no need for you to  personalize what does or does not.
> 
> But since you interjected such an inane comment, why don't you post some statistics that support your assertion that "blacks" receive preferential treatment in Ivy League universities, and thereby reap the benefits at the expense of you poor, maligned, white "victims" being marginalized, due to such concessions.
> 
> And then compare them to the preferential treatment that SOME whites receive due to legacy admissions.
> 
> I will await your response.
Click to expand...




Sure. Here you go.











						How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others - American Renaissance
					

Colleges engineer the kind of "diversity" they want.




					www.amren.com
				





"A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford is a real eye-opener in revealing just what sorts of students highly competitive colleges want–or don’t want–on their campuses and how they structure their admissions policies to get the kind of “diversity” they seek. The Espenshade/Radford study draws from a new data set, the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), which was gathered from eight highly competitive public and private colleges and universities (entering freshmen SAT scores: 1360). {snip}

Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points."


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Lists are what you get when monkeys throw shit at each other, with no real discussion of the issue(s).


Yeah, believe me I've noticed how you respond time and again with lists of nothing but inane distraction and feeble character assassination attempts.  What a joy you are to "discuss" things with. Yet still no "white interests" to share after all those pages of crying and yabbering on about "white interests"? Incredible.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> i.e. other than crying you've got bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! Fine let us begin.
> 
> 
> #1. Not to be discriminated against to make up for past disadvantages to blacks.
> 
> 
> Query: Do you admit that this is a legitimate White Interest?
Click to expand...

OMG, finally one submission!

Not one of my interests, but if that's something you're bound and determined cry about then more power to ya. Legitimate for any other than you? I think you'd have to poll a representative sample of the population using that exact phrasing to get any sort of definitive answer. Perhaps alternatively, you could search for scholarly articles on the subject and see whether authorities have reached any sort of consensus on the issue.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

CNN - Evidence of Africans' part in slavery - Oct. 20, 1995 and When the Slave Traders Were African there are many more on the internet.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lists are what you get when monkeys throw shit at each other, with no real discussion of the issue(s).
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, believe me I've noticed how you respond time and again with lists of nothing but inane distraction and feeble character assassination attempts.  What a joy you are to "discuss" things with. Yet still no "white interests" to share after all those pages of crying and yabbering on about "white interests"? Incredible.
Click to expand...



No, I don't. That was lame of you.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> i.e. other than crying you've got bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! Fine let us begin.
> 
> 
> #1. Not to be discriminated against to make up for past disadvantages to blacks.
> 
> 
> Query: Do you admit that this is a legitimate White Interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG, finally one submission!
> 
> Not one of my interests, but if that's something you're bound and determined cry about then more power to ya. Legitimate for any other than you? I think you'd have to poll a representative sample of the population using that exact phrasing to get any sort of definitive answer. Perhaps alternatively, you could search for scholarly articles on the subject and see whether authorities have reached any sort of consensus on the issue.
Click to expand...



Do you support directing resources such as money or jobs or promotions or university slots to traditionally disadvantaged groups to make up for past injustices?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points."


So, by extension, Asians should be crying out "Not to be discriminated against to make up for past disadvantages to whites."?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> i.e. other than crying you've got bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! Fine let us begin.
> 
> 
> #1. Not to be discriminated against to make up for past disadvantages to blacks.
> 
> 
> Query: Do you admit that this is a legitimate White Interest?
Click to expand...


What about 


Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 314355
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What will you do, when people start fighting back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fighting
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> And so do the people you smear and vilify and marginalize.
> 
> 
> you lefties, with your constant spreading of fear and hate, are tearing this country apart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Utter bulllshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> See here is the deal. THe debate has, as always with you racebaiting fuckers, moved around to where the thing for me to do to make a fool of you, is to challenge you, give me your best example.
> 
> 
> And instead you would post various forms of bullshit, ranging from pretending it is a crazy question, to a bunch of links of gish galloping bullshit.
> 
> 
> And we could go back and forth, but the result is what you alway want, ie we spend all week discussion whether or not republican are "racist".
> 
> Creating the illusion that with so much smoke, there the idea that there might be fire, must be valid.
> 
> 
> FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF.
> 
> 
> Eat a big old pile of dicks, choke on them and die, you race baiting asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Except that your accusations of racism, are almost always bullshit and you know it. "*
> 
> That is utter bullshit. The only accusations of racism I point out are not almost always bullshit. They are never bullshit. I wouldn't levy such claims if I didn't believe them and couldn't back them up.
> 
> *"FUCK THAT SHIT. FUCK YOU, YOU ARE THE ONES TEARING THIS NATION APART. GO FUCK  YOURSELF. Eat a big old pil*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or t
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any attempt to give favorable treatment to blacks, to make up for past disadvantages, by the math principle of simple subtraction, takes away those limited resources from whites. That this practice has grown from just blacks to fucking EVERYONE who is not a white, normal, healthy male, has just made the practice even more harmful to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who's the racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Add sexist. Because white females have prospered more than any other demographic in America due to Affirmative Action.
> 
> Which I am fine with.
> 
> 
> Interestingly though, white males if extrapolated as a single demographic, represent roughly 30% of the US population, yet hold over 70% of managerial positions in the workforce.
> 
> There is no credible metric out there that supports the assertion that white males are "being discriminated against" on a mass scale.
> 
> That is pure, misinformed hysteria at work.
> 
> Simply because after multiple generations of  privileged treatment, mandated equality feels like oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties always like to look at results when it comes to discrimination, because the failed families and schools and communities created by lefties. create huge gaps, that they can pretend might come from "racism".
> 
> 
> But they know that if you look at what is actually going on comparing the action processes that get to those numbers, that the reasons for the various gaps, are never "white racism" but more often liberal policies causing dysfunction in a minority demographic.
> 
> 
> Grumble has posted about the big gap in education. Liberals often complain about it and want to take steps to address it.
> 
> 
> But they never make the obvious connection that if blacks are graduating from college at a much lower rate, then that would have impacts in "metrics" like how many blacks end up in management positions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Admissions and graduation levels are two different entities.
> 
> In order to graduate, one must first be admitted.
> 
> Blacks more typically attend junior colleges after graduation from high school, based on financial reasons as opposed to being admitted to a 4 year university through programs like "legacy admissions"  and after progressing to 4 year institutions are far  more likely to go into debt,  just  in order to attend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you want to pretend that "financial reasons" must be "racism" when it is more likely the result of having a single parent.
> 
> 
> So, once again,  you look to avoid looking at the actual reasons for a difference, and just try to get people to assume "racism".
> 
> 
> Ironically, demonstrating and validating my point.
> 
> 
> 
> RIght INSIDE of your attempt to counterpoint my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I did not "validate" your point, because you didn't really have one.
> 
> 
> 
> Furthermore, there is no reason for me to "pretend" regarding an actual fact.
> 
> Citing "financial hardship" is a far cry from citing  the "racism", that you are attempting to spin my words as.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You brought up the rate of white males in management, as though that proved that blacks are not discriminated in favor of.
> 
> 
> IF, blacks are less qualified, then blacks SHOULD be less represented in management.
> 
> 
> And indeed, it would be completely possible for blacks to be discriminated in favor of, to a great extent and yet, the impact of that discrimination to be hidden by the impact of the lower qualifications of the blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> The anti-white discrimination is still happening, despite the outcome you cited.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh
> 
> 
> 
> What that statistic proves is that white males are not being being discriminated against on a mass scale as you claim, in favor of blacks View attachment 314357
> in the workforce, nor are they in college admissions.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you actually of the belief that they are?
> 
> If so, what other measurements except for statistical data proves your point?
> 
> Isolated cases of some angry white person who believes that any black person that is admitted to a university or selected for a job "had to be at the expense of a more "deserving" white male?
> 
> White males are far more likely, if they were passed over, to have been passed over in order to accept or hire a white female.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Data that compares the qualifications of the people being selected, and does not make self serving assumptions about the reasons for outcomes.
> 
> 
> Such as the massive 300 point bonus that blacks get in Ivy League Admissions.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of this well documented fact, is not good. It does not reflect well on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What "reflects well upon me" is irrelevant.
> And there is no need for you to  personalize what does or does not.
> 
> But since you interjected such an inane comment, why don't you post some statistics that support your assertion that "blacks" receive preferential treatment in Ivy League universities, and thereby reap the benefits at the expense of you poor, maligned, white "victims" being marginalized, due to such concessions.
> 
> And then compare them to the preferential treatment that SOME whites receive due to legacy admissions.
> 
> I will await your response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Here you go.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Diversity Punishes Asians, Poor Whites and Lots of Others - American Renaissance
> 
> 
> Colleges engineer the kind of "diversity" they want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.amren.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A new study by Princeton sociologist Thomas Espenshade and his colleague Alexandria Radford is a real eye-opener in revealing just what sorts of students highly competitive colleges want–or don’t want–on their campuses and how they structure their admissions policies to get the kind of “diversity” they seek. The Espenshade/Radford study draws from a new data set, the National Study of College Experience (NSCE), which was gathered from eight highly competitive public and private colleges and universities (entering freshmen SAT scores: 1360). {snip}
> 
> Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points."
Click to expand...

I've seen that "study" before, which actually illustrates more how ASIAN students are discriminated against in favor of white students.

Look that up. 

If you were actually for social justice, you would be incensed over what is happening to them.

As far as black students go, yes they do get a lift due to socioeconomic reasons, which are mainly related to generational poverty.

But Hispanic students also get a lift and a chance to attend colleges based on demographic studies, mainly due to assimilating into a foreign land .....but there is not a peep out of you about them.

Why?

Why is your ongoing, angry diatribe directed only towards blacks being admitted? 

We will soon see.

I have not yet addressed in detail,
 "legacy admissions", which benefit white students at a far  higher rate than the admissions of the "black bogeymen" that drive your personal anger. 

Stay tuned.

 More to follow.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lists are what you get when monkeys throw shit at each other, with no real discussion of the issue(s).
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, believe me I've noticed how you respond time and again with lists of nothing but inane distraction and feeble character assassination attempts.  What a joy you are to "discuss" things with. Yet still no "white interests" to share after all those pages of crying and yabbering on about "white interests"? Incredible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't. That was lame of you.
Click to expand...

Don't what, make lists? You've got to be kidding yourself.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> i.e. other than crying you've got bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! Fine let us begin.
> 
> 
> #1. Not to be discriminated against to make up for past disadvantages to blacks.
> 
> 
> Query: Do you admit that this is a legitimate White Interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG, finally one submission!
> 
> Not one of my interests, but if that's something you're bound and determined cry about then more power to ya. Legitimate for any other than you? I think you'd have to poll a representative sample of the population using that exact phrasing to get any sort of definitive answer. Perhaps alternatively, you could search for scholarly articles on the subject and see whether authorities have reached any sort of consensus on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support directing resources such as money or jobs or promotions or university slots to traditionally disadvantaged groups to make up for past injustices?
Click to expand...

No, currently disadvantaged would do. I don't believe there is such a thing as making up for past injustices. Thoroughly acknowledging and apologizing for them along with returning any recovered stolen property is about all one could reasonably expect. Providing all equal access and opportunity is the main thing.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Consistent with other studies, though in much greater detail, Espenshade and Radford show the substantial admissions boost, particularly at the private colleges in their study, which Hispanic students get over whites, and the enormous advantage over whites given to blacks. They also show how Asians must do substantially better than whites in order to reap the same probabilities of acceptance to these same highly competitive private colleges. On an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white (for those who applied in 1997) equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points."
> 
> 
> 
> So, by extension, Asians should be crying out "Not to be discriminated against to make up for past disadvantages to whites."?
Click to expand...



Asians have a case of discrimination against them that benefits just about everyone else, except maybe jews. 

Do you like the idea that having black skin is worth 310 SAT points, effectively? Do you support that?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> i.e. other than crying you've got bupkis.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!!! Fine let us begin.
> 
> 
> #1. Not to be discriminated against to make up for past disadvantages to blacks.
> 
> 
> Query: Do you admit that this is a legitimate White Interest?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG, finally one submission!
> 
> Not one of my interests, but if that's something you're bound and determined cry about then more power to ya. Legitimate for any other than you? I think you'd have to poll a representative sample of the population using that exact phrasing to get any sort of definitive answer. Perhaps alternatively, you could search for scholarly articles on the subject and see whether authorities have reached any sort of consensus on the issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you support directing resources such as money or jobs or promotions or university slots to traditionally disadvantaged groups to make up for past injustices?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, currently disadvantaged would do. I don't believe there is such a thing as making up for past injustices. Thoroughly acknowledging and apologizing for them along with returning any recovered stolen property is about all one could reasonably expect. Providing all equal access and opportunity is the main thing.
Click to expand...



So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.


So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.


And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.


Is that correct?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Asians have a case of discrimination against them that benefits just about everyone else, except maybe jews.


No idea what that's supposed to mean.


Correll said:


> Do you like the idea that having black skin is worth 310 SAT points, effectively? Do you support that?


In principle. Don't know for sure without seeing how they arrived at that number.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.


Where the disadvantage is clear and the ongoing reason for it well understood, yes.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Asians have a case of discrimination against them that benefits just about everyone else, except maybe jews.
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what that's supposed to mean.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you like the idea that having black skin is worth 310 SAT points, effectively? Do you support that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In principle. Don't know for sure without seeing how they arrived at that number.
Click to expand...




The looked at every admission over a certain period of time and compared SAT scores to admissions. 


Given similar grades, a black kid could get admitted with SAT scores 310 points lower than a white kid. 


You support it in principle. Ok.

Is there any limit to how much you would want see taken from whites to be given to blacks?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.
> 
> 
> And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.
> 
> 
> Is that correct?


If that's their private policy, yep. Why do you hate capitalism?
Now if it were a public school? They better take all comers!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.
> 
> 
> 
> Where the disadvantage is clear and the ongoing reason for it well understood, yes.
Click to expand...



Sounds kind of subjective. Who decides when the disadvantage is clear or if a reason is well understood?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.
> 
> 
> And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.
> 
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> If that's their private policy, yep. Why do you hate capitalism?
> Now if it were a public school? They better take all comers!
Click to expand...




Public school has to take all comers? Why? Why should blacks not be given help in public schools?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Is there any limit to how much you would want see taken from whites to be given to blacks?


You want to take money from whites and give it to blacks? You're such a weirdo!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.
> 
> 
> 
> Where the disadvantage is clear and the ongoing reason for it well understood, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds kind of subjective. Who decides when the disadvantage is clear or if a reason is well understood?
Click to expand...

Not me, obviously. You neither. Competent professionals hopefully.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there any limit to how much you would want see taken from whites to be given to blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> You want to take money from whites and give it to blacks? You're such a weirdo!
Click to expand...


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


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, you do support, giving limited resource to people based not on individual need or individual merit, but based on group identity, such as race.
> 
> 
> 
> Where the disadvantage is clear and the ongoing reason for it well understood, yes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds kind of subjective. Who decides when the disadvantage is clear or if a reason is well understood?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not me, obviously. You neither. Competent professionals hopefully.
Click to expand...


What kind of professionals do you hire to make such a moral call? Moral Philosophers? Evolutionary Sociologists?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.
> 
> 
> And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.
> 
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> If that's their private policy, yep. Why do you hate capitalism?
> Now if it were a public school? They better take all comers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public school has to take all comers? Why? Why should blacks not be given help in public schools?
Click to expand...

You mean giving all equal access somehow excludes blacks in your world?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, a poor white kid, applies to a Ivy League school and liberal admissions officer, following their diversity policies, gives the slot he would have gotten to some middle class black kid, who scored lower then him and who's family makes more money than the white kid's family.
> 
> 
> And if I understand you correctly, you would support that, because as a group, blacks are CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED.
> 
> 
> Is that correct?
> 
> 
> 
> If that's their private policy, yep. Why do you hate capitalism?
> Now if it were a public school? They better take all comers!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Public school has to take all comers? Why? Why should blacks not be given help in public schools?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean giving all equal access somehow excludes blacks in your world?
Click to expand...



Equal access? Ok, so public resources have to be given out equally? No special consideration when it comes to public resources but private money is allowed to discrimination as much as they want?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


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


My ass!


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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> What kind of professionals do you hire to make such a moral call?


None. Not my line of work. Is it yours?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Ok, so public resources have to be given out equally?


No.


Correll said:


> No special consideration when it comes to public resources


Yeah, there should be.


Correll said:


> but private money is allowed to discrimination as much as they want?


No, they have to follow the law. How old are you?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> My ass!
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.
Click to expand...



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


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


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of professionals do you hire to make such a moral call?
> 
> 
> 
> None. Not my line of work. Is it yours?
Click to expand...




It is more of a passion.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, so public resources have to be given out equally?
> 
> 
> 
> No.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> No special consideration when it comes to public resources
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, there should be.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> but private money is allowed to discrimination as much as they want?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, they have to follow the law. How old are you?
Click to expand...



You seem to be jumping all over the place.


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


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


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


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
Click to expand...

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

Well, you are a leftist.  Nothing but emotion.

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

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> My ass!
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stated that you would support given favorable treatment and resources to members of a "CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED GROUP".
> 
> 
> You did not state any limit or scale to this "treatment". Perhaps I put my question wrong.
> 
> 
> Would you like to give me a limit or scale to your position? I'm not trying to play gotcha games with the wording. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position, so that I can address it, correctly, without you getting angry at me for "putting words in your mouth".
Click to expand...

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


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

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

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

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


----------



## IM2

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

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

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


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't talk about these things now can you. You don't have any clue about them. If you did, you'd be running your mouth. You came here to fuck with me and got your racist white ass kicked with a quickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Hello, Central Casting?  I have a part for a guy.  'Angry Black Man'.  Yes, the angrier, the better....Right.  Lots of calling people racist, lots of arrogance, lots of 'bowing up', as the kids say...You have a guy?  Awesome!  Have his agent call him!"
> 
> Your phone should be ringing any minute with a gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens. So you just keep running because you can't discuss what has gone on since slavery ended because it crushed that little lie whites like you have made up. I beat your ass, and you know it. I Beat Correll long ago. He's a joke, a whiny snot nose joke, now you have joined the Correll the clown club.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your delusions are not reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's not my fault if you can look directly at something and claim it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminating the Second Amendment is not the left's position. Neither of the only two remaining Democrat candidates for president propose eliminating it. Biden himself bitchslapped someone recently for falsely attributing that position to him.
> 
> You're fucking deranged.
> 
> More so than I thought as now I see you really do b'lieve your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He can't help himself. Cognitive dissonance has set in. He calls himself challenging the black man as the great savior of the racist right. The fearless hero who will not bow to the black man like his imaginary liberals do. He ain't scurred to tell the black man about himself, yet he cannot discuss a court case that shows how the government helped whites practice racism because he knows that by discussing this case, he will be shown how whites have benefitted from racism just as I have said and that will kill his crying about my racism.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## daveman

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens.
> 
> 
> 
> That sums up this topic neatly, and many others I've seen. Just trying to picture all these put upon "white people" clutching their pearls while pounding out this daily stream of insufferable dreck... _Yuck!!  _Makes perfect sense to be a proud, surviving, marginalized minority. Hard finding much to celebrate about identifying as a member of a neck crushing majority.
Click to expand...

You and IM get a room.  Sheesh.


----------



## daveman

Faun said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your inability to accept reality in no way alters reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your delusions are not reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look, Skippy, it's not my fault if you can look directly at something and claim it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Eliminating the Second Amendment is not the left's position. Neither of the only two remaining Democrat candidates for president propose eliminating it. Biden himself bitchslapped someone recently for falsely attributing that position to him.
> 
> You're fucking deranged.
> 
> More so than I thought as now I see you really do b'lieve your delusions are real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ummm, Biden said he was going to appoint Beta to run gun policy.
> 
> You know, Beta, the guy who said he was going to take away people's ARs?
> 
> Meanwhile, in the reality you pretend doesn't exist:
> 
> Over a Third of Democrats Would Repeal Second Amendment
> 
> Repeal the Second Amendment -- That's the New York Times, by the way.
> 
> Why It’s Time to Repeal the Second Amendment
> 
> Repealing the Second Amendment isn't easy but it's what March for Our Lives students need
> 
> Repeal the Second Amendment
> 
> You can screech NUH UH!! all you want, but it's pointless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, banning AR's doesn't repeal the Second Amendment.  You morons are dumber than shit.
Click to expand...

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

Fuckhead.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> You seem to be jumping all over the place.


No, just following you.


Correll said:


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


That's what I said!


Correll said:


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


After consulting with school professionals hopefully, yes.


Correll said:


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


Sure, why not?


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## daveman

katsteve2012 said:


> Alan Stallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lt. Col. Allen West would have a good run if he chose to run this decade.
> 
> Republicans could have had Dr. Alan Keyes in 2000, but unfortunately went with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bush's 2000 rival John McCain in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.
> 
> I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT has nothing to do with anyone being on the "left, right or middle", and you know it.
> 
> It is you attempting to persuade another poster to say something against a poster that you disagree with in order to defend yet  another poster that you are obviously in agreement with.
> 
> That is some childish, petty bullshit.
> 
> I dont see you "chastising" anyone who you think is on the so called called "right", so work on your own  hypocrisy, and consider finding a new "hobby"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  Okay, you get a checkmark in the "hates it when his hypocrisy is pointed out" column.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left can't exist without their double standards.  Period.  End of story.  More whining about it changes nothing, so don't even bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, here we have yet another moralizing hypocrite attempting to police this forum and assign political labels to complete strangers who were minding their own business.
> 
> You are not a moderator, therefore  your silly attempt to direct who I criticize in your behalf is laughed at and dismissed.
> 
> Now get lost.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> My ass!
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stated that you would support given favorable treatment and resources to members of a "CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED GROUP".
> 
> 
> You did not state any limit or scale to this "treatment". Perhaps I put my question wrong.
> 
> 
> Would you like to give me a limit or scale to your position? I'm not trying to play gotcha games with the wording. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position, so that I can address it, correctly, without you getting angry at me for "putting words in your mouth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would theoretically be calibrated to make up for the disparity. How they determine that exactly? I obviously have no idea, but I think it safe to say not zero nor 100%. Why do you care?
Click to expand...



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


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


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


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be jumping all over the place.
> 
> 
> 
> No, just following you.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, there SHOULD be special consideration in public resources too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I said!
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. And that will be decided by Politicians? Law makers" Government bureaucrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After consulting with school professionals hopefully, yes.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for blacks to have input into this money being spent on them? Perhaps to organize into groups to advocate for their needs or interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, why not?
Click to expand...




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


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



So, Blacks have the right. 


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

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


IN YOUR OPINION?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
Click to expand...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is your position we are talking about. I am showing you the respect of treating your positions and posts seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> 
> My ass!
> 
> 
> 
> I repeat the question. Is there a limit to how much you would take from whites to give to blacks?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said anything like that. If you suddenly wanted to be serious and honest you'd begin by admitting to those being your words only.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You stated that you would support given favorable treatment and resources to members of a "CURRENTLY DISADVANTAGED GROUP".
> 
> 
> You did not state any limit or scale to this "treatment". Perhaps I put my question wrong.
> 
> 
> Would you like to give me a limit or scale to your position? I'm not trying to play gotcha games with the wording. I'm just trying to get a handle on your position, so that I can address it, correctly, without you getting angry at me for "putting words in your mouth".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It would theoretically be calibrated to make up for the disparity. How they determine that exactly? I obviously have no idea, but I think it safe to say not zero nor 100%. Why do you care?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Why do I care, when you are discussing possibly taking 99% of available resources and depriving me and mine of having any access to them, and giving them to someone else?
> 
> 
> Cause it would be a huge freaking HARM to me, and my interests if you did something like that.
> 
> 
> I mean, you know that. That is why you said NOT one hundred per cent, right?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## daveman

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be jumping all over the place.
> 
> 
> 
> No, just following you.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, there SHOULD be special consideration in public resources too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I said!
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. And that will be decided by Politicians? Law makers" Government bureaucrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After consulting with school professionals hopefully, yes.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for blacks to have input into this money being spent on them? Perhaps to organize into groups to advocate for their needs or interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, blacks get to organize and have input into public decision making regarding giving them special consideration and extra resources to make up for "current disadvantages".
> 
> 
> Ok. That makes sense. I mean, they have an interest in how much they will be getting and how it will be spent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, Blacks have the right.
> 
> 
> Do whites have any right to have input into that discussion? It seems like a WHITE INTEREST, how much or more to the point, how little resources will be left for them, after the special consideration and extra resources are giving to blacks.
> 
> So, do WHITES have the same right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS, as the BLACKS do,
> 
> 
> IN YOUR OPINION?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to be jumping all over the place.
> 
> 
> 
> No, just following you.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, there SHOULD be special consideration in public resources too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's what I said!
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. And that will be decided by Politicians? Law makers" Government bureaucrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After consulting with school professionals hopefully, yes.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be ok for blacks to have input into this money being spent on them? Perhaps to organize into groups to advocate for their needs or interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, why not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, blacks get to organize and have input into public decision making regarding giving them special consideration and extra resources to make up for "current disadvantages".
> 
> 
> Ok. That makes sense. I mean, they have an interest in how much they will be getting and how it will be spent.
> 
> 
> 
> So, Blacks have the right.
> 
> 
> Do whites have any right to have input into that discussion? It seems like a WHITE INTEREST, how much or more to the point, how little resources will be left for them, after the special consideration and extra resources are giving to blacks.
> 
> So, do WHITES have the same right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS, as the BLACKS do,
> 
> 
> IN YOUR OPINION?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They do by default being the majority in this democratic society. Majority rule, capiche?
Click to expand...




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


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


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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


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


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


Correll said:


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


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


Correll said:


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


Quote me or knock that off.


Correll said:


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


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites have the right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS because they are the majority?
> 
> 
> 
> Whites certainly do get to express their individual interests and do so regularly being they comprise the majority. However, I've yet to meet anyone in RL who had "white interests" they wished to communicate in any public decision making venue.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But BLACKS have it, and they are NOT the majority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, being in the minority, blacks have to work much harder to get their voices heard.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you seemed really hostile to the idea of WHITE INTERESTS earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote me or knock that off.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what happens in 2050 when Whites are no longer the Majority? Do we lose the right to speak out in favor of our INTERESTS then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the tables will be turned. It will get harder for whites to be heard. However, whites will likely still have and control way more capital for at least another fifty years if any of us survive that long.
Click to expand...




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


but a GROUP interest, of WHITES. 


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



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


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Nothing but emotion.
> 
> And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Emotion and double standards.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites have the right to organize and speak out in favor of their WHITE INTERESTS because they are the majority?
> 
> 
> 
> Whites certainly do get to express their individual interests and do so regularly being they comprise the majority. However, I've yet to meet anyone in RL who had "white interests" they wished to communicate in any public decision making venue.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But BLACKS have it, and they are NOT the majority?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, being in the minority, blacks have to work much harder to get their voices heard.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you seemed really hostile to the idea of WHITE INTERESTS earlier.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote me or knock that off.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what happens in 2050 when Whites are no longer the Majority? Do we lose the right to speak out in favor of our INTERESTS then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then the tables will be turned. It will get harder for whites to be heard. However, whites will likely still have and control way more capital for at least another fifty years if any of us survive that long.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the government is favoring BLACKS with public funds, and resources, up to NOT 100%,  then that is not an INDIVIDUAL INTEREST, for each individual to individually try to seek redress for,
> 
> 
> but a GROUP interest, of WHITES.
> 
> 
> Because it is not individuals being discriminated against, in access to public resources, but WHITES AS A GROUP.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you see that as a GROUP WHITE INTEREST now, and if not, why not?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't talk about these things now can you. You don't have any clue about them. If you did, you'd be running your mouth. You came here to fuck with me and got your racist white ass kicked with a quickness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Hello, Central Casting?  I have a part for a guy.  'Angry Black Man'.  Yes, the angrier, the better....Right.  Lots of calling people racist, lots of arrogance, lots of 'bowing up', as the kids say...You have a guy?  Awesome!  Have his agent call him!"
> 
> Your phone should be ringing any minute with a gig.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If white men can be angry about some shit they imagine, I can be pissed off about what really happens. So you just keep running because you can't discuss what has gone on since slavery ended because it crushed that little lie whites like you have made up. I beat your ass, and you know it. I Beat Correll long ago. He's a joke, a whiny snot nose joke, now you have joined the Correll the clown club.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you have to tell people you won...you didn't.  I'm sure it makes you feel better about yourself, though.
Click to expand...


Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean?


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.
> 
> Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.
Click to expand...


Try forming one yourself.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?
> 
> You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves.  How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?
Click to expand...


I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself.  It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun.  So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Nothing but emotion.
> 
> And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Emotion and double standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.
Click to expand...

You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist.  You think you have, but there was no actual racism there.  I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!

I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.
> 
> Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try forming one yourself.
Click to expand...

I have.  It makes you angry.  And that's your problem, not mine.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?
> 
> You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves.  How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself.  It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun.  So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.
Click to expand...

You wanna discuss a case from 1926?

Sure.  It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.

So you're beating a dead horse.  You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something. 

Looks like you can stop whining about it now. 

But you won't.

As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact.  There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.

No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt.  It's past time you grew up, kid.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Nothing but emotion.
> 
> And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Emotion and double standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist.  You think you have, but there was no actual racism there.  I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!
> 
> I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.
Click to expand...

Yes I have. In standard USMB racist fashion, you avoid the challenge then claim things. You were asked to discuss the decision made in Corrigan v. Buckley. You can't because it proves my point of how the government has given whites everything they  have. It kills your claim of my racism, so all you have left is trolling.


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Nothing but emotion.
> 
> And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Emotion and double standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist.  You think you have, but there was no actual racism there.  I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!
> 
> I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I have. In standard USMB racist fashion, you avoid the challenge then claim things. You were asked to discuss the decision made in Corrigan v. Buckley. You can't because it proves my point of how the government has given whites everything they  have. It kills your claim of my racism, so all you have left is trolling.
Click to expand...

Keep reading.  Let me know if you need help with the big words.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?
> 
> You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves.  How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself.  It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun.  So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanna discuss a case from 1926?
> 
> Sure.  It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.
> 
> So you're beating a dead horse.  You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.
> 
> Looks like you can stop whining about it now.
> 
> But you won't.
> 
> As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact.  There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.
> 
> No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt.  It's past time you grew up, kid.
Click to expand...


Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.

You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.

My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Nothing but emotion.
> 
> And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Emotion and double standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist.  You think you have, but there was no actual racism there.  I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!
> 
> I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I have. In standard USMB racist fashion, you avoid the challenge then claim things. You were asked to discuss the decision made in Corrigan v. Buckley. You can't because it proves my point of how the government has given whites everything they  have. It kills your claim of my racism, so all you have left is trolling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep reading.  Let me know if you need help with the big words.
Click to expand...


That was weak.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.
> 
> Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try forming one yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have.  It makes you angry.  And that's your problem, not mine.
Click to expand...


lol! If you call the psychosis you post rational...


----------



## daveman

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?
> 
> You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves.  How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself.  It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun.  So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanna discuss a case from 1926?
> 
> Sure.  It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.
> 
> So you're beating a dead horse.  You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.
> 
> Looks like you can stop whining about it now.
> 
> But you won't.
> 
> As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact.  There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.
> 
> No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt.  It's past time you grew up, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.
> 
> You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.
> 
> My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.
Click to expand...

"And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not."

You're dismissed.


----------



## IM2

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?
> 
> You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves.  How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself.  It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun.  So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanna discuss a case from 1926?
> 
> Sure.  It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.
> 
> So you're beating a dead horse.  You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.
> 
> Looks like you can stop whining about it now.
> 
> But you won't.
> 
> As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact.  There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.
> 
> No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt.  It's past time you grew up, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.
> 
> You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.
> 
> My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not."
> 
> You're dismissed.
Click to expand...


The reality here that  you have dismissed is that the givernment continued the practices that were supposed to be overturned by the court.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?
> 
> You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves.  How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself.  It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun.  So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanna discuss a case from 1926?
> 
> Sure.  It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.
> 
> So you're beating a dead horse.  You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.
> 
> Looks like you can stop whining about it now.
> 
> But you won't.
> 
> As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact.  There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.
> 
> No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt.  It's past time you grew up, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.
> 
> You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.
> 
> My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not."
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality here that  you have dismissed is that the givernment continued the practices that were supposed to be overturned by the court.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile YOU call anyone that disagrees with you a racist. Thats what makes you racist you think any white person that has a different opinion then you is racist, you think any black person that disagrees with you is an uncle Tom. You can not ACTUAL link to ANY racist comment by most of the people you label a racist and when called on it you waffle and never once have you linked to any racist comment by me EVER.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The right seems to have a fixation on guns and gays.
> 
> 
> 
> You said something right for a change.
> 
> I support gays legally owning firearms for self-protection.  It's a basic human right and applies to everyone.
> 
> The left doesn't.  The left wants people to be defenseless.  I'd ask you to think about it, but you're sadly not capable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a lie. But you're a dumb ass, so this is expected. OBTW White & Black Guns: A History Of Gun Control For Black People
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a lie?  Of course it isn't.  Don't be silly.
> 
> Why do Democrat-led cities such as Chicago and Baltimore have such high gun death rates when they have such restrictive gun control?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not a lie and no, we won't be discussing right wing memes. Seems that's all you got. First it's the blacks still own slaves today meme and now the democrat-Baltimore- Chicago meme. I'm surprised you didn't add Detroit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ooooh, right, Detroit's a liberal shithole, too.
> 
> Meanwhile, using the standards you yourself set, you're too cowardly to discuss the Democratic Party's criminalization of self-defense and the horrible effects it's had on Democrat-controlled cities.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the democratic party has not criminalized self defense and you don't necessarily need a gun for self defense, there is nothing to discussed. So don't run from the questions I asked you son. I live in a republican state that was fucked up by a republican governor and legislator. Your memes are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't get to dictate what people need, kid.  You just need to accept that damn quick.
> 
> You lefties want to disarm law-abiding Americans.  This is undeniable.  So don't waste even more of my time denying it.  Why don't you go to Baltimore or Chicago and try to disarm criminals?
> 
> Hint:  Because you don't care about victims of crime.  Period.  End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And he still cannot discuss the supreme court case I mentioned. Because the UCR shows us annually that the majority of criminals are white and the majority of victims of crime are white. Yet you are here talking about 2 cities. This means you don't care about victims of crime, you just want to post racist drivel.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you want people of any race to be able to defend themselves against criminals of any race?
> 
> You say no one needs a firearm to defend themselves.  How do you defend yourself against a criminal with a firearm?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said you don't necessarily need a gun to defend yourself.  It is apparent you can't whip anyone by using your physical skills. Every criminal doesn't use a gun and if you have a gun and are attacked with a criminal who has pulled a gun on you, you're dead when you try grabbing your gun.  So try discussing Corrigan v. Buckley. What did that mean.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You wanna discuss a case from 1926?
> 
> Sure.  It was overturned in 1948, Shelley v. Kraemer.
> 
> So you're beating a dead horse.  You can pretend Corrigan means something now, but it's just a footnote in history, flogged about by idiots who think it still proves something.
> 
> Looks like you can stop whining about it now.
> 
> But you won't.
> 
> As far as your horseshit about guns, stop trying to pass off your ignorance as fact.  There are far more defensive gun uses every year than crimes committed with them.
> 
> No, people are not going to give up their Second Amendment rights just because your feelings are hurt.  It's past time you grew up, kid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Corrigan shows what whites were doing after slavery. And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not. See junior, you really don't know what the fuck you are talking about and should be quiet. Two weeks after the court ruled, the FHA Commissioner stated that the decision would not change the policies or procedures of the FHA meaning that restrictive covenants, redlining and other race based discrimination against blacks and others who were not white would continue to be the policy of the FHA, or in short, the federal government.
> 
> You are completely wrong about your gun shit, but I am not obsessed with the ability to be able to shoot someone so I don't give a damn what your opinion on the matter is.
> 
> My argument is that things went on after slavery ended that impact us today as well as there is continuing racism going on today that impacts communities of color negatively. The argument has gone way beyond slavery and only the racists talk about todays African slavery like its the only slavery on earth while ignoring the slaves in Europe. You do so to try diverting the argument about the racism here in America by whites such as yourself as part of the gaslighting you guys try doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "And while you say it was overturned in 1946, it really was not."
> 
> You're dismissed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The reality here that  you have dismissed is that the givernment continued the practices that were supposed to be overturned by the court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Meanwhile YOU call anyone that disagrees with you a racist. Thats what makes you racist you think any white person that has a different opinion then you is racist, you think any black person that disagrees with you is an uncle Tom. You can not ACTUAL link to ANY racist comment by most of the people you label a racist and when called on it you waffle and never once have you linked to any racist comment by me EVER.
Click to expand...


Wrong. I've show you examples of your racism. That tactic won't work anymore. Calling a white person "having a different opinion than I do" a racist is not racism. You get presented actual cases that show how whites have benefitted from the government and even as you see the evidence you disagree. So you are not disagreeing based on fact. You have made claims about blacks committing 50 percent of the crimes here. The UCR annual reports show white commit 60 percent of the violent crime. You disagree with that when the facts show different, then you try arguing on a per capita basis which implicates the entire black race even those not committing crimes, and think that is not racist.

There are blacks who don't agree with me who I don't call uncle toms. But the blacks you guys push in front of us who repeat your racist opinions are. I don't see any one of you pushing out Shermichael Singleton as some hero or someone black who should be a presidential candidate. He is a black republican, so why is that? He is far more intelligent than Candice Owens and would eat her alive in any type of debate.  But he's not pumped up by those like you because he doesn't follow the massas plan for blacks. Deny all racsim and declare to blacks that white supremacy doesn't exist. If Singleton ran for president, he could get my vote.

And Colin Powell was excommunicated from the party when he decided to think independently.

Your disagreements with me have primarily been about my lived experiences as a black man versus your opinion as a white man. I think that when I sat there and watched older blacks talking about leaving the republican party and you haven't, that my opinion of why blacks left is definitive and you have nothing to disagree with about it.. When I am black and look at the policies and beliefs of republicans, especially in places like this, my statement of reasons why I do not join the republican party are definitive and you have nothing to disagree about.

Especially when your disagreement is made up of fictional bullshit about white liberal mind control on a made up figurative plantation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Actually you retard I have NEVER commented on YOUR experiences I have never disagreed that in the past there was Jim Crow. You call me a racist because I cite facts like that Obama was a crappy President, not cause he was black but because his policies SUCKED. I note with links that blacks were JUST as complicit in the slave trade and your response is to call me a racist and claim blacks were FORCED to attack pother black tribes take prisoners and sell them to whites. And your response, No that didn't happen, even though it is historical fact. You ignore all the whites that fought against slavery risking life and limb to do it and dismiss it as not important. You blatantly REFUSE to acknowledge that right now in 2020 Blacks in Africa still practice Slavery.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
Click to expand...

LOL

Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> And by getting my ass kicked, your big claim is that Republicans would elect a black man who never wanted to be president.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Would HAVE, yes. The data is clear. The claim the the reason for the lack of black republican presidents, being "racism" is demonstrated to be incorrect.
Click to expand...

No, not would have. You can't be elected president if you're not running.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're arguing with something I never said then you're arguing with yourself -- and losing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu having a hissy fit over such a minor quibble, is pathetic. You are just trying to distract from how much you have gotten your ass handed to you.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL

Spits the idiot whose best hope of electing a black republican as president is someone who's not running for president.


----------



## Faun

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.
> 
> Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.
Click to expand...

So? What's wrong with shutting down racism?


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Actually you retard I have NEVER commented on YOUR experiences I have never disagreed that in the past there was Jim Crow. You call me a racist because I cite facts like that Obama was a crappy President, not cause he was black but because his policies SUCKED. I note with links that blacks were JUST as complicit in the slave trade and your response is to call me a racist and claim blacks were FORCED to attack pother black tribes take prisoners and sell them to whites. And your response, No that didn't happen, even though it is historical fact. You ignore all the whites that fought against slavery risking life and limb to do it and dismiss it as not important. You blatantly REFUSE to acknowledge that right now in 2020 Blacks in Africa still practice Slavery.



I showed you proof of what happened in Africa. Your opinion in that regard is a widely held white racist opinion.  You don't want to recognize the fact that whites had slaves in Europe at that time enslaving one another and instead of sending them to be slaves in the colonies, they invaded Africa and got them there. Your claim of total African complicity fails when you read the countless stories of African resistance.

You want me to give equal credence to the few whites who fought with blacks to end slavery while the majority of whites did not. You seem to deny the role blacks had in forcing whites to end slavery. I don't cater to white fragility. You will face things as they have been. 

You say you didn't like Obama because his policies sucked, but his policies turned around a dead economy, reduced 10 percent unemployment to full employment, and set records for job growth that is still going on now. 

You talk about Africans still owning slaves in Africa, yet slavery still goes on in Europe and here in this country. So your whole argument is whataboutism. The central failure in your argument is that whites bought the slaves in Africa and whites made slavery legal in America. Slavery was made illegal in America 155 years ago, yet whites continued practicing the same racism and discrimination after slavery ended  which you refuse to address.

The violations left slavery 155 years ago. We are now talking about the effects of jim crow apartheid and modern white racism. And these are the issues you refuse to discuss or recognize.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

As usual you don't actually read what people write that you disagree with. I never claimed all black Africans were in the slave Trade You can quit claiming it is a bald faced LIE. Whites could NOT go into the interior of Africa for the first 200 years or so of the slave trade, INSTEAD they located coastal tribes and traded with them for slaves. I provided 2 links that show this and prove the point. No one forced those tribes to enter into the slave trade There are more links if you need more proof. Then when the Europeans started colonizing parts of Africa they still did business with those tribes that were slavers.

Be very specific and cite for me any meaningful group of Americans or Europeans that have slaves NOW? A couple forcing a worker into slave wages is illegal and when they are discovered they are arrested. Meanwhile there is several Black African Nations that PRACTICE slavery.

You are a liar by the way slavery ended because whites that opposed slavery in Countries with slavery gained either control of the Government or convinced the Government to stop slavery. In the US it took a war.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Be specific now IM2 and link to the black groups that caused European Countries to end Slavery.  Timeline of abolition of slavery and serfdom - Wikipedia


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> As usual you don't actually read what people write that you disagree with. I never claimed all black Africans were in the slave Trade You can quit claiming it is a bald faced LIE. Whites could NOT go into the interior of Africa for the first 200 years or so of the slave trade, INSTEAD they located coastal tribes and traded with them for slaves. I provided 2 links that show this and prove the point. No one forced those tribes to enter into the slave trade There are more links if you need more proof. Then when the Europeans started colonizing parts of Africa they still did business with those tribes that were slavers.
> 
> Be very specific and cite for me any meaningful group of Americans or Europeans that have slaves NOW? A couple forcing a worker into slave wages is illegal and when they are discovered they are arrested. Meanwhile there is several Black African Nations that PRACTICE slavery.
> 
> You are a liar by the way slavery ended because whites that opposed slavery in Countries with slavery gained either control of the Government or convinced the Government to stop slavery. In the US it took a war.



I have read everything you wrote. Your claim of African complicity ignores way too much. You are incorrect retardedsgt. First off the Portuguese were stealing slaves and that's where it started. They did not trade for slaves. There is all kinds of documented evidence that supports what I just said. You need to read what Africans wrote about this instead of only what whites wrote. 

As for current slavery in white countries. And as for slavery in America, go ask Robert Kraft. He got busted for soliciting a sex slave.









						Modern Slavery in Europe
					

Opinion |    Human trafficking is the 21st century's modern form of slavery, and it concerns the entire European Union.




					www.themoscowtimes.com
				











						Modern slavery in the heart of Europe
					

No need to travel far from EU institutions to find out about migrant labour conditions. #EuropeNews




					www.euronews.com
				







__





						Modern-day slavery in focus + Europe | Global-development | The Guardian
					

Index




					www.theguardian.com
				











						‘Modern Slavery’ Ring in U.K. Ensnared up to 400 Polish People, Authorities Say (Published 2019)
					

Eight traffickers from Poland have been convicted in what officials called the largest such case Britain has experienced.




					www.nytimes.com
				











						‘Modern-day slavery’ on the rise in Europe: report
					

Men working in agriculture, hospitality and fisheries are most at risk of exploitation, according to human rights body.




					www.politico.eu
				





			Europe and Central Asia | Global Slavery Index
		









						Prostitution, trafficking and modern slavery in Europe
					

Committee on Equality and Non-Discrimination Rapporteur: Mr José MENDES BOTA, Portugal, Group of the European People's Party Trafficking in human...




					ec.europa.eu
				




In Europe, black abolitionists launched or participated in civic movements to end the deportation and enslavement of Africans. They too delivered speeches, provided information, wrote newspaper articles and books.

Using violent as well as nonviolent means, Africans in Africa, the Americas, and Europe were constantly involved in the fight against the slave trade and slavery.





__





						Home - The Abolition of The Slave Trade
					





					abolition.nypl.org
				




In January 1804, an event that had enormous repercussions shook the world of the enslaved and their owners. The black revolutionaries, who had been fighting since 1791, crushed Napoleon's 43,000-man army.

In December 1803, in full debacle, the 8,000 French soldiers left on the island (most of the others had been killed in combat and 20,000 had died of yellow fever), boarded their ships, and sailed away. Within twelve years, black Haitians had fought against and defeated not only the French colonists but also the French, Spanish, and British armies.





__





						Home - The Abolition of The Slave Trade
					





					abolition.nypl.org
				




As conspiracies and revolts reached a height in the 1790s, slave societies started to fear the influence of "French Negroes," who were thought to harbor ideals of freedom brought about by the revolutions in France and Saint-Domingue.

Interestingly, the largest U.S. revolt — in terms of participants — took place in 1811 in Louisiana and was led by Charles Deslondes from Haiti. French and French Creole-speaking men were associated with uprisings in British, Spanish, and Dutch colonies until 1820, and they led a large revolt in Curaçao in 1795.

In Cuba, José Antonio Aponte, a free man who organized an uprising in 1812, had promised his followers that help would come from Haiti, and he galvanized his troops with pictures of Toussaint L'Ouverture, Jean-Jacques Dessalines, and Henri Christophe. In the United States, black abolitionists, nationalists, and activists were inspired by the uprising and its emblematic figure, Toussaint L'Ouverture. They daringly paid tribute to the revolution at a time when white abolitionists played it down, afraid it would repel sympathetic whites.

During the 1816 rebellion in Barbados, references were made to Haiti. In 1820 Denmark Vesey, who had been enslaved on the island for a few months and had bought his freedom in Charleston, South Carolina, recruited determined participants  — including enslaved Haitians forcibly brought during the revolution — to what was one of the best-organized slave conspiracy in the country. His goal was to free the enslaved with the help of Haiti and sail to Africa or to the black republic.

African Americans fought against the slave trade and slavery through sabotage, escape, conspiracies, and revolts while freed people were involved in abolitionist activities, from organizing campaigns to delivering speeches and writing pamphlets, as demonstrated in _Abolition and Celebrations._  And as explained in _The Abolitionist Movement in Britain and the United States_ , African abolitionists such as Olaudah Equiano and Ottobah Cugoano were quite active in Great Britain. Less well known is the role of blacks in the movement that brought about the abolition of the slave trade and slavery in the French colonies long before any other territories in the Western Hemisphere.

During the French Revolution of 1789, people of color from Saint-Domingue, Guadeloupe, and Martinique living in France organized themselves into the Société des citoyens de couleur (Society of Colored Citizens), headed by mulatto Julien Raimond, a wealthy planter and slaveholder from Saint-Domingue. It worked closely with the Société des amis des noirs (Society of the Friends of the Blacks), which asked for equal rights for free people of color, the immediate abolition of the slave trade, and a gradual abolition of slavery. In 1791 the Société des citoyens worked diligently to gather together activists who were dispersed in various clubs and kept the revolutionaries informed of the political and social situation in Saint-Domingue, where the uprising had started during the night of August 22-23.





__





						Home - The Abolition of The Slave Trade
					





					abolition.nypl.org
				







__





						Home - The Abolition of The Slave Trade
					





					abolition.nypl.org
				




Direct conflict also was part of the fight for abolition. 

But revolts on slave ships, although extremely difficult to organize and conduct, were numerous. About 420 revolts have been documented in slavers' papers, and they do not represent the totality. It is estimated that 100,000 Africans died in uprisings on the coast or during the Middle Passage. The fear of revolts resulted in additional costs for the slavers: larger crews, heavy weapons, and barricades. About 18 percent of the costs of the Middle Passage were incurred due to measures to thwart uprisings, and the captives who rose up saved, according to estimates, one million Africans from deportation by driving up the slavers' expenses.





__





						Home - The Abolition of The Slave Trade
					





					abolition.nypl.org
				




Now would you like to quit running and address this?









						10 Ways American Slavery Continued Long After The Civil War - Listverse
					

Slavery in America didn’t end with the Emancipation Proclamation. It lived on---even after the Civil War had ended and the 13th Amendment had been put




					listverse.com


----------



## RetiredGySgt

And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.


----------



## katsteve2012

daveman said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Stallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lt. Col. Allen West would have a good run if he chose to run this decade.
> 
> Republicans could have had Dr. Alan Keyes in 2000, but unfortunately went with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bush's 2000 rival John McCain in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.
> 
> I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT has nothing to do with anyone being on the "left, right or middle", and you know it.
> 
> It is you attempting to persuade another poster to say something against a poster that you disagree with in order to defend yet  another poster that you are obviously in agreement with.
> 
> That is some childish, petty bullshit.
> 
> I dont see you "chastising" anyone who you think is on the so called called "right", so work on your own  hypocrisy, and consider finding a new "hobby"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  Okay, you get a checkmark in the "hates it when his hypocrisy is pointed out" column.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left can't exist without their double standards.  Period.  End of story.  More whining about it changes nothing, so don't even bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, here we have yet another moralizing hypocrite attempting to police this forum and assign political labels to complete strangers who were minding their own business.
> 
> You are not a moderator, therefore  your silly attempt to direct who I criticize in your behalf is laughed at and dismissed.
> 
> Now get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, you leftists really hate it when your double standards are pointed out.
> 
> You don't like it?  Stop being a hypocrite.  Dumbass.
Click to expand...


What I  "don't like" are  moralizing little pricks like you.
You do not know whether I am left, right, or in the middle,  you dunce.

Either way, what I choose to say or not to say to anyone here, is none of your  business.

You don't set the guidelines here, nor do you regulate what I or anyone else says to anyone.

Like I told you, before, get lost and mind your own business, you annoying insect.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.



Actually what I said is exactly why European countries ended slavery. But while you want to give whites sole credit for freeing blacks, white colonized and ruled non white nations after they ended slavery and the result is that those nations were ruined and still struggle today. Then we continue to see you run from this truth, and it just kills your argument of whites ending anything.

*10 Ways American Slavery Continued Long After The Civil War*

Slavery in America didn’t end with the Emancipation Proclamation. It lived on—even after the Civil War had ended and the 13th Amendment had been put into place.

The Civil War brought the Confederate States back into the Union, but the people who lived in the South weren’t through fighting. They were determined to keep things exactly as they were during the heyday of slavery.

They made state laws that let them keep black people in essential servitude. As a result, slavery in America lived on for a lot longer than most people realize.

Slavery Was Used As A Legal Punishment






Photo via Wikimedia
The 13th Amendment didn’t make all forms of slavery illegal. It kept one exception. Slavery, it ruled, was still permitted “as a punishment for crime.”

All the Southern states had to do was find a reason to arrest their former slaves, and they could legally throw them right back on the plantation. So, Southern politicians set up a series of laws called the “Black Codes” that let them arrest black people for almost anything.

In Mississippi, a black person could be arrested for anything from using obscene language to selling cotton after sunset. If he was as much as caught using a bad word, he could be charged, leased out as a slave laborer, and put to work in chain gangs and work camps on farms, mines, and quarries.

It happened a lot. By 1898, 73 percent of Alabama’s revenue came from leasing out convicts as slaves.[1]

The enslaved convicts were treated terribly. They were beaten so brutally and viciously that, in one year, one of every four enslaved convicts died while working. Work camps kept secret, unmarked graves where they would bury men they’d beaten to death to hide the evidence. By the end, those graves held the mutilated bodies of at least 9,000 men.

*9 Many Freed Slaves Worked On The Same Farms For The Same Wages*





Photo credit: notevenpast.org
When the 13th Amendment was passed, a judge in Alabama declared that he and his Southern brethren were going to keep black slave labor alive in the South. “There is really no difference,” he said, “whether we hold them as absolute slaves or obtain their labor by some other method.”

He was right. Their new jobs as free people weren’t much different from their jobs as slaves. The newly freed slaves may have dreamed of better lives and new occupations, but a better life wasn’t easy to find. They had no money, no education, and no experience doing anything other than slaving away on a white man’s plantation.

Many ended up signing labor contracts with their former masters and were put back to work on the same farms. There, white landowners kept slave-condition gang labor alive with whites overseeing black workers.

Pay wasn’t much better than it was during slavery. In fact, it was often worse. The earliest records of black wages weren’t taken until 1910, nearly 50 years after emancipation. Even then, the average black man made no more than one-third the salary of the average white man.[2]

*8 Sharecropping Made Slaves Through Debt*





Photo credit: georgiaencyclopedia.org
Emancipated slaves had been promised 40 acres of land and a mule, but the government quickly backed out of the deal. It was an unfeasible amount of land to take from the white people who owned it, and most refused to sell their land to black people anyway. So they came up with something else—sharecropping.

White landlords would offer to give black families about 20 acres of land on which to grow cotton. In exchange, the whites expected about half of the black families’ crops. The landlords would even be able to dictate what the blacks grew, which often meant they’d be stuck growing tobacco or cotton.

With fields full of cotton, the slaves couldn’t grow their own food. So they had to buy it. But with half of their incomes going to white landlords, they were often bringing home less than slaves. They’d have to borrow money for food from the landlords, too—keeping the blacks in a perpetual cycle of debt and servitude.[3]

*7 Unemployed Black People Were Forced To Work Without Pay*





Photo credit: encyclopediavirginia.org
If you turned down the slave-labor jobs you were being offered, they’d just make you work. If a black person in Virginia was caught without a job, he could be charged with vagrancy. He’d be forced to spend the next three months working for pay that, even at the time, was described as “slaves wages [that were] utterly inadequate to the support of themselves.”

Trying to escape just made things worse. If a vagrant working slave wages tried to run, he would be tied up with a ball and chain and forced to keep working—except that now he wouldn’t get paid a penny.[4]

Vagrancy was called “slavery in all but its name.” But it was often much worse than what the blacks had gone through in slavery days. More than that, it forced black people to either accept the slave-like conditions that came with sharecropping and gang labor or to work without pay.

*6 Fake Apprenticeships*





Photo credit: notevenpast.org
Another way to keep legal slaves was to call them your apprentices. Plantation owners would lure their former slaves back by promising to teach them everything the plantation owners knew and get the freedmen ready to succeed on their own. However, the plantation owners just put the freedmen right back in their old slave jobs.

The former slaves would now be under contracts forcing them to work for their old masters, and the freed slaves could get in legal trouble for breaking these contracts. If they got real jobs, even the people who hired them could be sued by the slave owners for “enticing” their apprentices away.[5]

One woman named Elizabeth Turner went through this. She was tricked into going right back to the same slave labor she’d done before emancipation. Turner managed to get out with the help of an abolitionist lawyer who took her case for free. But most weren’t so lucky. Most former slaves were illiterate and uneducated and didn’t know any way to get out of the contracts that threw them right back into slavery.

*5 Confederados Took Their Slaves To Brazil*





Photo credit: businessinsider.com
Brazil lured Confederate slave owners after the Civil War. Slavery was still legal there, and it was in wider swing than it ever had been in the US. About five million slaves had been sent across the Atlantic to Brazil—more than 10 times the number that had been sent to the US.

For many Confederates, that was a selling point. Between 10,000 and 20,000 people moved from the US to Brazil under the promise that they would be allowed to keep their slaves. Some dragged their newly emancipated slaves with them to a land where the freedmen could be forced back into servitude. Meanwhile, other Confederates picked up new slaves in Brazil at discounted prices.

Even today, there are little communities in Brazil that still revere their American slave-owning ancestors, called “Confederados” by the community that took them in.[6] Now 150 years later, the descendants of slavers still wave Confederate flags and speak with a Georgia twang.

*4 Black Workers Were Locked Up And Beaten*





Systems of slavery through debt like sharecropping were officially made illegal in 1867, but they carried on for about another 100 years. Sometimes, though, it wasn’t just the debt keeping people imprisoned.

Some African Americans were lured to jobs and then actually locked up and kept from leaving. For example, one group of workers in Florida went to work in a sugarcane field and soon found themselves locked up in a filthy shack. Their new employers would beat the former slaves to get them to work and threatened to kill them if they tried to leave.[7]

In other places across the US, black workers were shackled to beds or beaten with cat-o’-nine-tails to keep them working for nothing more than a few scraps. The men lured in were usually illiterate, and so they were completely incapable of fighting for their freedom in court.

This wasn’t the norm, however, and even white Southerners were disgusted when they found out it was happening. Little was done to stop it, though, until the 1940s. It took concentrated Axis propaganda campaigns to shame the US into genuinely and effectively stamping out these camps.

*3 Blacks Couldn’t Testify Against Whites*





Photo credit: Bedford
In Kentucky, black people didn’t have the legal right to testify against white people in court. That was more than just a civil injustice. It allowed white people to effectively do whatever they wanted to their black neighbors.

A white person could walk into a black person’s house, take everything, and get away with it. And sometimes, that was exactly what happened.

A black woman named Nancy Talbot was sitting in her home when a white man broke in, grabbed everything he could carry, and left. Talbot tried pressing charges against the thief, and there was no doubt in anyone’s mind—including that of the judge—that the thief was guilty.[8]

But Talbot was legally forbidden from testifying. Without her testimony, the judge couldn’t convict the white criminal.

Black people had the right to earn their own money now, but they didn’t have any recourse to keep it. A white person could take anything the black person had earned right out his pocket, and there was essentially nothing that the blacks could do about it.

*2 White People Could Get Away With Massacres*





Even if the 13th Amendment made it illegal on paper to beat a slave, laws like Kentucky’s made it perfectly possible to massacre a whole black family and get away with it. Which is exactly what John Blyew and George Kennard did.

In 1868, Blyew and Kennard broke into the home of the black-skinned Foster family with an axe. The two intruders murdered the father, mother, and grandmother and seriously wounded two of the children.[9]

The eldest child, 16-year-old Richard, hid under his father’s dead body until the killers left. Then he crawled to a neighbor’s house for help. He’d been hit by their axe, though, and his wounds were so bad that he died two days later.

The only survivors were the youngest children: eight-year-old Laura, who had hidden and survived, and six-year-old Amelia, who had been hacked in the head but miraculously lived. Still, Amelia went the rest of her life with a massive, disfiguring scar across her face—and without her parents.

Blyew and Kennard were arrested. But under Kentucky law, the survivors weren’t allowed to testify. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that Kennard and Blyew couldn’t be convicted because the witnesses were black.

Eventually, the law was changed and Blyew and Kennard were sent to prison. But they didn’t stay there long. Both men were pardoned by the governor and set free.

*1 Mississippi Didn’t Ratify The 13th Amendment Until 1995*





Photo credit: _Smithsonian Magazine_
When the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery was passed in 1865, 27 of America’s then-36 states ratified it. As the years passed, the other states gave up their stance of protesting emancipation and threw their support behind the right of a black person to live free.

For some states, though, it took a long time. Kentucky didn’t ratify the 13th Amendment until 1976, and Mississippi waited until 1995 before officially accepting that slavery was against the Constitution.

Even after voting to end slavery in 1995, though, Mississippi still didn’t go through with it. The politicians who voted for the resolution didn’t report it to the Federal Register, so it didn’t actually take effect until 2013.

It wasn’t until activists realized that Mississippi was still registered as protesting the end of slavery that they actually put the order through. Officially, Mississippi’s government was against ending slavery until just four years ago.









						10 Ways American Slavery Continued Long After The Civil War - Listverse
					

Slavery in America didn’t end with the Emancipation Proclamation. It lived on---even after the Civil War had ended and the 13th Amendment had been put




					listverse.com
				




So exactly what did whites end? Grow up. If whites want to brag about how they created the greatest country of all time, whites must accept the mistakes they made while doing it. For the entire 243 years of this country's existence, whites like yourself have assumed a superiority and claimed you conquered because you were technologically and intellectually superior. Proof shows that you weren't. So now because your delusions of grandeur are being pissed on by facts you want to try creating a new story.

But whites had serfs who were slaves in the middle ages and they went into Africa to find slaves instead of using the slaves they had. This you don't want to discuss. Had Africans got on ships and went to Europe selling slaves then your argument would have merIt, but the reality is that whites went to Africa with the expressed intent of capturing slaves and used every means at their disposal to do it. White's made agreements with African kings then kidnapped and enslaved the kings they made agreements with.  I've studied this and still do. From all sides. I don't absolve the Africans, but I do also understand that those Africans did not see themselves as one race, but as nations of people who were different. So you claim that blacks sold each other is disingenuous based on that alone. Whites enslaved each other in Europe, but whites will say that the English enslaved the Irish and that allows them to differentiate. You nor any white person like you does that for Africans and you do this because you want to create a lie that did not happen.


----------



## Grumblenuts

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.


Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Grumblenuts said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
Click to expand...

That is simply wrong. No battle no uprising no attack by blacks convinced a single European Country to ban slavery.


----------



## IM2

Civil War wasn't to end slavery Purposes: The South fought to defend slavery. The North's focus was not to end slavery but to preserve the union. The slavery apology debate misses these facts.

T IS GENERALLY accepted that the Civil War was the most important event in American history. Yet, as two recent controversies remind us, we disagree on what that war was about.
The question of whether the nation should make a formal apology for slavery has brought forth from such authorities as former history professor Newt Gingrich and columnist George F. Will the declaration that we fought the war to end slavery.

Meanwhile, across the South, where battles continue over the display of Confederate flags and related symbols, white defenders of their "heritage" argue that the Civil War was not about slavery but about states' rights and "Southern independence."

Orlando Sentinel columnist Charley Reese has gone so far as to assert that the Confederacy was fighting for "liberty."

All of these beliefs are based on misreadings of history, and, taken together, they have the reality exactly backward. The Civil War was not fought to end slavery; it was fought to defend slavery.

The confusion stems from the failure to realize that the two sides in a war need not be fighting over the same issue.

The objective of the North was not to end slavery but to preserve the Union. What the South sought was not to end the Union but to preserve slavery.









						Civil War wasn't to end slavery Purposes: The South fought to defend slavery. The North's focus was not to end slavery but to preserve the union. The slavery apology debate misses these facts.
					






					www.baltimoresun.com


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is simply wrong. No battle no uprising no attack by blacks convinced a single European Country to ban slavery.
Click to expand...


You've been shown that your opinion is incorrect.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is simply wrong. No battle no uprising no attack by blacks convinced a single European Country to ban slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been shown that your opinion is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Be specific now and cite a single battle a single uprising or or attack that somehow changed the Governments minds in Europe. The facts are that whites realized what they were doing was wrong and quit.


----------



## Grumblenuts

RetiredGySgt said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is simply wrong. No battle no uprising no attack by blacks convinced a single European Country to ban slavery.
Click to expand...


Semantics. Regardless, the struggle shall continue.. And what best to do about it now shall remain the question.


----------



## RetiredGySgt

Grumblenuts said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is simply wrong. No battle no uprising no attack by blacks convinced a single European Country to ban slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics. Regardless, the struggle shall continue.. And what best to do about it now shall remain the question.
Click to expand...

Semantics my ass. Whites stopped slavery in Europe.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is simply wrong. No battle no uprising no attack by blacks convinced a single European Country to ban slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been shown that your opinion is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be specific now and cite a single battle a single uprising or or attack that somehow changed the Governments minds in Europe. The facts are that whites realized what they were doing was wrong and quit.
Click to expand...


You were shown that what happened in Haiti shocked Europe and began a change. Also, you were shown the resistance by Africans that took the lives of white invaders, which also helped the cause.


----------



## IM2

RetiredGySgt said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is simply wrong. No battle no uprising no attack by blacks convinced a single European Country to ban slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Semantics. Regardless, the struggle shall continue.. And what best to do about it now shall remain the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Semantics my ass. Whites stopped slavery in Europe.
Click to expand...


Semantics. Whites colonized Africa and still enslaved Africans.


----------



## 22lcidw

Grumblenuts said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
Click to expand...

Agreed......Now lets hire the best of us all and not the qualified forced on us by over quotas.


----------



## Correll

daveman said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Nothing but emotion.
> 
> And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Emotion and double standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist.  You think you have, but there was no actual racism there.  I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!
> 
> I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.
Click to expand...



He is a delusional fool.

But in that, he is an excellent representative of the Left. 


So, I keep talking to him.


----------



## IM2

22lcidw said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed......Now lets hire the best of us all and not the qualified forced on us by over quotas.
Click to expand...

Understand that quotas were 100 percent white for almost 200 years. So quotas have always been forced on you.


----------



## IM2

Whites worked so hard to end slavery in America that they created Jim Crow.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is tired son. You argue against documented history, court cases and public policy. That's what you're challenging and you're challenging it with only your opinion. So let's talk about Corrigan v. Buckley. This case is an example of how the government helped whites enforce racist policy. I doubt if you know anything about that case and decision. But when I say that the government has given whites everything they have, you want to argue claiming that you aren't kissing any black persons ass and that somehow you're whitey the hero because you challenge the black man you call a racist because he refuses to genuflect to your punk lily white ass.
> 
> The fact you know nothing about this case is a reason why you don't want to discuss the years after slavery and it is why you best leave this argument before I stick my black foot so far up your white ass, that you can walk while sitting on it.
> 
> You call me a racist and you do that based on your white fragility.
> 
> 
> 
> You're retarded.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you know nothing about Corrigan v. Buckley but you want yo argue with me and call me a racist. Now that's retarded. Do you know what a deed clause is? A restrictive covenant? Contract selling? C'mon Mr. I'm the white man that bows to no negro. Because when I say that Whites have benefitted from racist law and policy, you choose to disagree, woof about what ass you won't kiss, then call me a racist for saying things like that. These things happened after slavery so talking about who owns who today us just a diversion and its all you got. You decided you could go from high school to the pros, but you ain't Kevin Garnett. White racist shit talk don't work here son. I ain't posting memes junior, I'm posting legal cases and decisions from the United States Supreme court. You have no challenge for this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's nice.  Go play.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He says he want's to discuss the case, then mentions NOTHING about the case. He does spew a lot of racist bullshit though.
> 
> 
> Did he think no one would notice? Or is he so stupid that he did not notice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's counting on the usual leftist response:  Do Not Question The Black Person.
> 
> Rational people, however, don't do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked if the chump knew anything about the case correll. Just like I asked your punk ass to show the national policy of anti white racism you have yet to show. Stay out of adult conversations boy.
> 
> Now chump, I asked if you knew anything about Corrigan v. Buckley. If you new anything about the case I don't have to mention anything. So Mr. I will question all blacks because a want to show all the other racists that I ain't scared, do you know anything about that case?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It makes you angry when people don't say the things you want them to say, doesn't it?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Nothing but emotion.
> 
> And how loudly would you screech RACIST!!! if I called you "boy", huh?
> 
> Well, you are a leftist.  Emotion and double standards.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you don't know anything about the supreme court case. That would mean you have to discuss things rationally and logically, instead of emotionally. Which you cannot do. I don't have to screech anything, you show your racism when you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never have pointed out anything I've said that's racist.  You think you have, but there was no actual racism there.  I just said things you don't like, so you screech RACISM!!!
> 
> I think I'm vastly tired of your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I have. In standard USMB racist fashion, you avoid the challenge then claim things. You were asked to discuss the decision made in Corrigan v. Buckley. You can't because it proves my point of how the government has given whites everything they  have. It kills your claim of my racism, so all you have left is trolling.
Click to expand...




No, you have not. YOu are a fool.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
Click to expand...



It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago. 


That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.


Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> And by getting my ass kicked, your big claim is that Republicans would elect a black man who never wanted to be president.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Would HAVE, yes. The data is clear. The claim the the reason for the lack of black republican presidents, being "racism" is demonstrated to be incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, not would have. You can't be elected president if you're not running....
Click to expand...



Are you really too stupid to understand from context, that I was referring to "if he had decided to run"? I mean, I did not spell it out, because it was so obvious that you would have to be a complete fucking moron to not get my meaning.


Are you seriously claiming that you are that fucking stupid?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> YOU admitted many Republicans/conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *LOL*
> 
> No, I did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOU said a black Republican struggles to get elected...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I did not.
> ​_
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected* and Democrats would be largely responsible for this."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> ... it wouldn't be a problem if there weren't so many racists on the right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It wouldn't be a problem if you didn't think there were so many racists on the right.
> 
> As for whether or not a black Republican nominee could get elected, I can't say that he would not get elected and I didn't say that in the first place. However, one thing I know for sure: many blacks would see him/her as a sellout and an Uncle Tom for deserting or not joining the party they think he should have. You know this as well as I do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"No, I did not. "*
> 
> The fuck you didn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right, the fuck I didn't.
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> "And if a black Republican does get nominated, *it's unlikely he/she would be elected*"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _​
> Quoted out of context. How original.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you know by now that I do not agree that most conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. So what is the point in your pursuing this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's good because I never said most conservatives are racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You said I admitted to it dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck -- *quote me* saying you admitted *"most*_ conservatives are racist."_
> 
> When you realize you can't since I never said that, fuck off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _"Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist."_
> 
> So what is this about, my use of the word "most" as opposed to "many"? Is that it? If so, very well; I do not agree that many Republicans and conservatives are racist and that I did not mean what you think I said. Better?
> 
> So again, why are you pursuing this if you know it's not what I said or what I meant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What a freaking drama queen. All of that, over that?
> 
> 
> What a loser.
> 
> 
> Well, I guess he was desperate for something to have a hissy fit over, to distract from how badly he has had his ass kicked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've run into this sort of thing many times. If you can't actually refute the argument, make your opponent look foolish or stupid. It's what Grumblefish did with me the whole time he was debating me in this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're arguing with something I never said then you're arguing with yourself -- and losing.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOu having a hissy fit over such a minor quibble, is pathetic. You are just trying to distract from how much you have gotten your ass handed to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Spits the idiot whose best hope of electing a black republican as president is someone who's not running for president.
Click to expand...




We are discussing hypotheticals here. Did you really not understand that? What is your iq?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
Click to expand...



I like how you ignore the whites who fought against slavery. 


Great way to increase division. Ignore the history of people working across color lines.


You ever think about what kind of future you are building, where whites will be a minority, and they will get the blame for the bad things done by white ancestors, but no credit for any of the good things done by their ancestors? 



Are you only happy when it rains?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is simply wrong. No battle no uprising no attack by blacks convinced a single European Country to ban slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've been shown that your opinion is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be specific now and cite a single battle a single uprising or or attack that somehow changed the Governments minds in Europe. The facts are that whites realized what they were doing was wrong and quit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You were shown that what happened in Haiti shocked Europe and began a change. Also, you were shown the resistance by Africans that took the lives of white invaders, which also helped the cause.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> 22lcidw said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery hasn't ended. Making it widely illegal first took blacks fighting back and speaking out to convince enough white people to grow up and accept that man is the same no matter the color.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Agreed......Now lets hire the best of us all and not the qualified forced on us by over quotas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Understand that quotas were 100 percent white for almost 200 years. So quotas have always been forced on you.
Click to expand...


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

IM2 said:


> Whites worked so hard to end slavery in America that they created Jim Crow.



And then whites ended Jim Crow.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I like how you ignore the whites who fought against slavery.


Cute. You can't read and cry like a little girl.


----------



## Faun

RetiredGySgt said:


> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.


Actually, it took men from the north to beat the racist conservative south into submission to give up their slaves.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites worked so hard to end slavery in America that they created Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then whites ended Jim Crow.
Click to expand...




Lefties only believe in groups when it is assigning blame to whites. When it is something that would be  CREDIT to whites, different rules apply.


And of course, all other races have different rules too. THey get the reverse. THey get credit for anything good, and get a pass for anything bad.


AND it is racist to point it out. OR to be unhappy about it. 


And really, you're just racist for being white. Original Sin, baby.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you ignore the whites who fought against slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Cute. You can't read and cry like a little girl.
Click to expand...



See we both did snark.


The different is that my point was based on your actual position and statements.


while your's is just you making up shit.


And EVERYONE CAN SEE THAT, INCLUDING YOU.


So, who do you think you are fooling with your stupid lies?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Suuure, numbnuts ... so how many Republicans' votes did Powell get?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it took men from the north to beat the racist conservative south into submission to give up their slaves.
Click to expand...



Using modern labels to describe evens of over 150 years ago, is misleading and dishonest.


Which is why you did it. 


Because you know that lying is the only way for modern liberals like yourself, to win an argument.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it took men from the north to beat the racist conservative south into submission to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Using modern labels to describe evens of over 150 years ago, is misleading and dishonest.
> 
> 
> Which is why you did it.
> 
> 
> Because you know that lying is the only way for modern liberals like yourself, to win an argument.
Click to expand...

Oh?? You saying the Bible Belt wasn't conservative in the 1860's?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Suuure, numbnuts ... so how many Republicans' votes did Powell get?
Click to expand...





Not the point and you know it.


Question: DId it shock you the first time you learned of the Exit Polls showing Powell winning vs Bill Clinton?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Suuure, numbnuts ... so how many Republicans' votes did Powell get?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point and you know it.
Click to expand...

That's exactly the point. You just don't like it. The south, regardless of political party, has always been more conservative than the north. The racist conservative south refused to give up their slaves and even tried to form their own slave nation, for which the north had to beat them into submission to remain a whole nation.



Correll said:


> Question: DId it shock you the first time you learned of the Exit Polls showing Powell winning vs Bill Clinton?


Why are you asking me questions when you refuse to answer mine?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it took men from the north to beat the racist conservative south into submission to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Using modern labels to describe evens of over 150 years ago, is misleading and dishonest.
> 
> 
> Which is why you did it.
> 
> 
> Because you know that lying is the only way for modern liberals like yourself, to win an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?? You saying the Bible Belt wasn't conservative in the 1860's?
Click to expand...



I'm saying that pretending an unity between a political faction TODAY, and a group of people over a 150 years ago, is something only an dishonest hack would do.

That was my point. I made it. Are you going to address it now, or would you prefer to pretend to not understand it again?



Conservatives in America TODAY, are interesting in "conserving" THe Enlightenment Era principles of the Founding Fathers.


ANy pretense that that is not the case, is someone lying.  Or being an ignorant fool, I guess...


No, it is someone lying. Anyone that stupid, could not figure out how to work a keyboard, or find their way out of their room.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Suuure, numbnuts ... so how many Republicans' votes did Powell get?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the point and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's exactly the point. You just don't like it. The south, regardless of political party, has always been more conservative than the north. The racist conservative south refused to give up their slaves and even tried to form their own slave nation, for which the north had to beat them into submission to remain a whole nation.
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question: DId it shock you the first time you learned of the Exit Polls showing Powell winning vs Bill Clinton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why are you asking me questions when you refuse to answer mine?
Click to expand...




Because I did answer yours. I pointed out that that was not the point.  That is my answer.


My question to you stands.

 DId it shock you the first time you learned of the Exit Polls showing Powell winning vs Bill Clinton?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it took men from the north to beat the racist conservative south into submission to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Using modern labels to describe evens of over 150 years ago, is misleading and dishonest.
> 
> 
> Which is why you did it.
> 
> 
> Because you know that lying is the only way for modern liberals like yourself, to win an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?? You saying the Bible Belt wasn't conservative in the 1860's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that pretending an unity between a political faction TODAY, and a group of people over a 150 years ago, is something only an dishonest hack would do.
> 
> That was my point. I made it. Are you going to address it now, or would you prefer to pretend to not understand it again?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives in America TODAY, are interesting in "conserving" THe Enlightenment Era principles of the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> ANy pretense that that is not the case, is someone lying.  Or being an ignorant fool, I guess...
> 
> 
> No, it is someone lying. Anyone that stupid, could not figure out how to work a keyboard, or find their way out of their room.
Click to expand...

Try following the bouncing ball ... I didn't say they were Conservatives -- I said they were conservative. Which they were no matter how much that pisses you off.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RetiredGySgt said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet NONE of that ended slavery, it took white people to grow up and accept man was the same no matter the color. And EVERY European Country outlawed slavery not because of a black uprising and not because of blacks speaking but because enough whites finally understood and voted it away. And it took a war In the US where whites fought to end slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it took men from the north to beat the racist conservative south into submission to give up their slaves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Using modern labels to describe evens of over 150 years ago, is misleading and dishonest.
> 
> 
> Which is why you did it.
> 
> 
> Because you know that lying is the only way for modern liberals like yourself, to win an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh?? You saying the Bible Belt wasn't conservative in the 1860's?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that pretending an unity between a political faction TODAY, and a group of people over a 150 years ago, is something only an dishonest hack would do.
> 
> That was my point. I made it. Are you going to address it now, or would you prefer to pretend to not understand it again?
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives in America TODAY, are interesting in "conserving" THe Enlightenment Era principles of the Founding Fathers.
> 
> 
> ANy pretense that that is not the case, is someone lying.  Or being an ignorant fool, I guess...
> 
> 
> No, it is someone lying. Anyone that stupid, could not figure out how to work a keyboard, or find their way out of their room.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try following the bouncing ball ... I didn't say they were Conservatives -- I said they were conservative. Which they were no matter how much that pisses you off.
Click to expand...



Yes, I know. And my point, my answer is, that doing so is misleading. 


It does not piss me off. Please do not interpret my use of appropriate language as anger. When I am angry, you should be able to tell.


I am used to you libs being dishonest. YOu are dishonest, pretty much all the time. As I have discussed and for the reasons we both know to be true.


----------



## Grumblenuts

We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Correll said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whites worked so hard to end slavery in America that they created Jim Crow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then whites ended Jim Crow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lefties only believe in groups when it is assigning blame to whites. When it is something that would be  CREDIT to whites, different rules apply.
> 
> 
> And of course, all other races have different rules too. THey get the reverse. THey get credit for anything good, and get a pass for anything bad.
> 
> 
> AND it is racist to point it out. OR to be unhappy about it.
> 
> 
> And really, you're just racist for being white. Original Sin, baby.
Click to expand...


This is just one of the little factoids that IM2 likes to overlook.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.




You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position. 


Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.


This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.


But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.


Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.


And you know, that you cannot.


You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.



Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.



That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
Click to expand...

and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??

You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??

If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
Click to expand...

And put upon. Butt hurt. Poopy. Diaper rash. Somebody call the Wambulance!


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."

Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.

Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
Click to expand...




Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies. 


Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?


Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And put upon. Butt hurt. Poopy. Diaper rash. Somebody call the Wambulance!
Click to expand...




You talk real tough online, asshole.  Fuck you.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
Click to expand...




And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.


BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.


Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.


That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
Click to expand...

The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
Click to expand...



I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.


YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past. 

That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it. 


YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
Click to expand...

LOL

Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.


----------



## daveman

Faun said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.
> 
> Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? What's wrong with shutting down racism?
Click to expand...

Do you need help with the word "spuriously"?


----------



## daveman

katsteve2012 said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Stallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lt. Col. Allen West would have a good run if he chose to run this decade.
> 
> Republicans could have had Dr. Alan Keyes in 2000, but unfortunately went with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bush's 2000 rival John McCain in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.
> 
> I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT has nothing to do with anyone being on the "left, right or middle", and you know it.
> 
> It is you attempting to persuade another poster to say something against a poster that you disagree with in order to defend yet  another poster that you are obviously in agreement with.
> 
> That is some childish, petty bullshit.
> 
> I dont see you "chastising" anyone who you think is on the so called called "right", so work on your own  hypocrisy, and consider finding a new "hobby"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  Okay, you get a checkmark in the "hates it when his hypocrisy is pointed out" column.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left can't exist without their double standards.  Period.  End of story.  More whining about it changes nothing, so don't even bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, here we have yet another moralizing hypocrite attempting to police this forum and assign political labels to complete strangers who were minding their own business.
> 
> You are not a moderator, therefore  your silly attempt to direct who I criticize in your behalf is laughed at and dismissed.
> 
> Now get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, you leftists really hate it when your double standards are pointed out.
> 
> You don't like it?  Stop being a hypocrite.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I  "don't like" are  moralizing little pricks like you.
> You do not know whether I am left, right, or in the middle,  you dunce.
> 
> Either way, what I choose to say or not to say to anyone here, is none of your  business.
> 
> You don't set the guidelines here, nor do you regulate what I or anyone else says to anyone.
> 
> Like I told you, before, get lost and mind your own business, you annoying insect.
Click to expand...

So much arrogance, so little justification for it.

I've never told you what you may or may not say.  That's your guilty conscience speaking, I expect.

And you're still a hypocrite.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
Click to expand...




Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.


And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.

AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.


It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.


BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*


----------



## Correll

daveman said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said_ black_ Democrats. The party of which most blacks in this country belong to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for admitting your prejudice in assuming many Republicans and conservatives are racist.
> 
> You know, most Republicans are not racist and are completely baffled and angered by this trumped up hypocritical Democrat crusade against their imaginary racism and are quite frankly, sick and fucking tired of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yep. They complain about divisive politics, but don't realize how divisive it is, to accuse large numbers of people, falsely.
> 
> 
> They are pissing off EVERYONE. AT EVERYONE ELSE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not false.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Every time you do that, you are tearing this nation apart. You piss off the majority of whites, who are getting more and more pissed off at being treated like dirt.
> 
> 
> And you get minorities pissed off at whites, because you are filling their heads with fear of the supposedly evul racist whites.
> 
> 
> If your plan was to ruin this nation and inflame racial tension to the point of permanently damaging this nation, one would be hard pressed to come up with a better plan of action, than what you have already done.
> 
> 
> I mean, I just always assumed that you lefties knew that and just considered it the cost of doing business.
> 
> 
> Are you claiming that that is not true? That you did NOT know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, wait, is this just more lying from you?
> 
> 
> Whatever. FUck off and die.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you. The ones tearing this nation apart are the racists, not the ones calling out the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except the ones calling out the racists are doing so spuriously to shut down discussion.
> 
> Maybe if y'all could form a rational argument, you wouldn't need to try to shame people into silence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? What's wrong with shutting down racism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you need help with the word "spuriously"?
Click to expand...




Yes, he does. He doesn't understand that it is a bad thing.


----------



## theHawk

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


Whenever a black man runs for President as a Republican, the media and DNC go nuts and try to destroy the man.  Look what happened to Herman Cain, a well educated man with degrees in mathematics and computer science, but accused of “sexual assault” without any real evidence.  The media gave him the Clarence Thomas treatment.


----------



## IM2

theHawk said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever a black man runs for President as a Republican, the media and DNC go nuts and try to destroy the man.  Look what happened to Herman Cain, a well educated man with degrees in mathematics and computer science, but accused of “sexual assault” without any real evidence.  The media gave him the Clarence Thomas treatment.
Click to expand...

Herman Cain was outed by the Rick Perry campaign. Colin Powell got death threats and threats to expose his wifes mental history buy right wingers. Ben Carson was just too dumb. Alan Keyes was handcuffed and taken off a stage before a republican presidential debate in Atlanta.


----------



## Correll

theHawk said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever a black man runs for President as a Republican, the media and DNC go nuts and try to destroy the man.  Look what happened to Herman Cain, a well educated man with degrees in mathematics and computer science, but accused of “sexual assault” without any real evidence.  The media gave him the Clarence Thomas treatment.
Click to expand...



I don't know who I was more disgusted with. THe media for being the vile lying bastards they always are, or the religious right base of Cain's for giving them ANY credibility.


THe media deserves nothing but contempt. Anything negative they say about a republican, especially a black republican, should be ignored unless hard evidence is presented.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> theHawk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Whenever a black man runs for President as a Republican, the media and DNC go nuts and try to destroy the man.  Look what happened to Herman Cain, a well educated man with degrees in mathematics and computer science, but accused of “sexual assault” without any real evidence.  The media gave him the Clarence Thomas treatment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Herman Cain was outed by the Rick Perry campaign. Colin Powell got death threats and threats to expose his wifes mental history buy right wingers. Ben Carson was just too dumb. Alan Keyes was handcuffed and taken off a stage before a republican presidential debate in Atlanta.
Click to expand...



1. The media jumped on the Cain accusations like dog on a bone. 

2. Powell was loved by the Republican right wing due to his military background and his association with Reagan. If he had run, he would have crushed Dole in the primaries and Bill Clinton in the general.

3. Keyes was set up by the Establishment Country Club republicans who don't like hard core conservatives. That was not racial, but elitist and ideological. They are assholes, but not racist assholes.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
Click to expand...

If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...

You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...

But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
Click to expand...




You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.


ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow. 


The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.


Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.


Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?



My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons. 


AS proved by the 96 exit polls.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
Click to expand...


Let's cut to the chase.....

The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...

The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...

This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...

“For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”









						Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
					

From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...




					www.vanityfair.com
				




Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
Click to expand...




First of all, thanks for admitting that this thread is just about smearing the Republican Party, as "racist". We all knew that. You don't care about the alleged "topic".


The 96 exit polls proves tha the republican voters of that time, were fine with having a Republican President who had black skin, and by and large were sorry it was not an option. Speaking as a republican, I can assure you that as a group, we would much rather had had Colin Powell as President than the white guy, Bill Fucking Clinton.

AND the republican voters, are generally MORE conservative than the moderate Country Club Republicans who run the GOP, as demonstrated by their hissy fit when Trump won.


There are reasons for the way that blacks vote. Historic gop "racism" is not one of them. That is just not true.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.

So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.

How sad.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
Click to expand...



Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly. 

It happens a lot.

I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true. 


The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.


Which it is not. 

As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President. 


That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.


----------



## katsteve2012

daveman said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alan Stallion said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lt. Col. Allen West would have a good run if he chose to run this decade.
> 
> Republicans could have had Dr. Alan Keyes in 2000, but unfortunately went with George W. Bush in 2000, and Bush's 2000 rival John McCain in 2008.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist show written for morons and it is an embarrassment for anyone to admit they liked it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, there is nothing "wrong with me" because I do not share your particular taste in TV programs, and for you to even make a statement like that, makes YOU a pompous ass, not me. Obviously the show would have some regional appeal. By your own admission you were in a rust belt area where some people identified with the characters of the show, that's human nature.
> 
> I personally do not care who liked the show and who did not, nor am I judging anyone who did. It's not a big deal to me.
> 
> But you questioning my personal preferences as far as television shows, makes you someone who clearly has far too much time on their hands.
> 
> You nor me, nor anyone else "Knows what EVERYONE in America actually thought of the show", as you stated.
> 
> That is a ridiculous and illogical overstatement, because no one has the psychic ability to have such knowledge.
> 
> We have differing views of the Confederate flag and that amounts to what it is......different opinions, which has nothing to do with who watches what on television.
> 
> You are an extremely small and petty individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You'll understand if I don't hold my breath waiting for you to chastise rightwinger for what you're chastising Correll for.
> 
> Because everyone involved knows you're not going to do that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What RW says to another poster, is his business, not mine.
> 
> I'm not a moderator here, so what is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pointing out leftist hypocrisy is a hobby of mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IT has nothing to do with anyone being on the "left, right or middle", and you know it.
> 
> It is you attempting to persuade another poster to say something against a poster that you disagree with in order to defend yet  another poster that you are obviously in agreement with.
> 
> That is some childish, petty bullshit.
> 
> I dont see you "chastising" anyone who you think is on the so called called "right", so work on your own  hypocrisy, and consider finding a new "hobby"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow.  Okay, you get a checkmark in the "hates it when his hypocrisy is pointed out" column.
> 
> Meanwhile, the left can't exist without their double standards.  Period.  End of story.  More whining about it changes nothing, so don't even bother.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, here we have yet another moralizing hypocrite attempting to police this forum and assign political labels to complete strangers who were minding their own business.
> 
> You are not a moderator, therefore  your silly attempt to direct who I criticize in your behalf is laughed at and dismissed.
> 
> Now get lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Man, you leftists really hate it when your double standards are pointed out.
> 
> You don't like it?  Stop being a hypocrite.  Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I  "don't like" are  moralizing little pricks like you.
> You do not know whether I am left, right, or in the middle,  you dunce.
> 
> Either way, what I choose to say or not to say to anyone here, is none of your  business.
> 
> You don't set the guidelines here, nor do you regulate what I or anyone else says to anyone.
> 
> Like I told you, before, get lost and mind your own business, you annoying insect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So much arrogance, so little justification for it.
> 
> I've never told you what you may or may not say.  That's your guilty conscience speaking, I expect.
> 
> And you're still a hypocrite.
Click to expand...


Plenty of justification and no guilt  for being incredulous that someone who may possibly be an adult, is such a petty, busy body of a little bitch.

Where have I judged your political positions based on WHO I believe that YOU should have "chastised" on MY behalf?

 I didn't even know who you were until you bothered me.

Now you are just lying and denying that you implied that I should have "chastised" rightwinger for something that HE said to your buddy
Correll, in a conversation that YOU were not even a part of.

That is  the epitome of  being an ARROGANT, as well as IGNORANT hypocrite,  so you're projecting.

Go bother someone else, girl.


----------



## IM2

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
Click to expand...

THAK YOU! 

These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
Click to expand...



The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.

Your position is stupid.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep deflecting??

I never admitted anything....

What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....


If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
Click to expand...

By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??

When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....

And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??









						GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
					

GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...




					www.sfgate.com
				












						RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
					

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...




					www.mediaite.com


----------



## IM2

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??
> 
> When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....
> 
> And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediaite.com
Click to expand...


He can't say shit because he knows you're right. But he knows he can play his little game of internet racist here and at stormfront. He knows that other racists will come in this thread and try ganging up on blacks with all their diversions, conflations, fake republican history, race baited rhetoric about democratic plantations and then the occasional post from the tom of the week. Correll is the bitch of all bitches and that's all he is.


----------



## IM2

Hey Correll, when are you going to grow a fucking pair of nuts bitch? Find a mostly black forum and go post your shit. I am here in a white forum talking to you, so why can't you go find a black forum and talk shit to black people. Are you too scared to do that, pussy?

Go tell those black people how whites have supported a pro black agenda since the civil war ended. Tell them how there is a policy of anti white discrimination. Come on cat daddy, man up. Don't just talk your shit in here when you can be defended by your white racist friends. If you have conviction, you ain't scared to express them anywhere. Stop talking bout it pussy, be bout it. Go on and tell some black folks in a mostly black forum how grateful we should be to whites, especially whites in the republican party for allowing us to be free.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
Click to expand...




The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates. 

That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.


If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about. 


Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?


YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.


Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?


----------



## IM2

And what I said to Correll applies to daveman too. Go take your shit to a mostly black forum mr. I won't kiss no black ass. Don't be in a mostly white forum talking shit. That's the easy way. The lazy and shiftless way. Do what we blacks folks here are doin, take your opinions to another race besides your own and see what you get. You a man or a mouse jerry?


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??
> 
> When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....
> 
> And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediaite.com
Click to expand...




1.  Since his betrayal? NOt much. Which does not change the fact that before his betrayal, republicans were really wanted him to run and be President, thus disproving your claim of racism.

2. Ever clip of Candice I see, she is kicking some libs ass.  I don't see her as a savior of "black conservativism" so much as just a great conservative. I hope she sticks around forever, and keeps kicking lib ass. If she ever chooses to run for anything, I hope she does well.

3.  Alan Keyes was set up for failure by the asshole Country Club Republicans, and flamed out. They did not do it because they are racist assholes, but because they are elitists assholes, who don't like hard core conservatives.  YOu do understand that, right? 

4. I'm not sure what happened with Watts. 

5. I did not avoid it. I addressed it. THey were wrong to do so, and I support that fact that the one paid a price for his stupidity.  THe Southern Strategy was a myth. The South became less racist and as that happened, it also became less democratic. Perhaps a coincidence.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Hey Correll, when are you going to grow a fucking pair of nuts bitch? Find a mostly black forum and go post your shit. I am here in a white forum talking to you, so why can't you go find a black forum and talk shit to black people. Are you too scared to do that, pussy?
> 
> Go tell those black people how whites have supported a pro black agenda since the civil war ended. Tell them how there is a policy of anti white discrimination. Come on cat daddy, man up. Don't just talk your shit in here when you can be defended by your white racist friends. If you have conviction, you ain't scared to express them anywhere. Stop talking bout it pussy, be bout it. Go on and tell some black folks in a mostly black forum how grateful we should be to whites, especially whites in the republican party for allowing us to be free.





Tempting. But I already spend too much time online as it is....

If I decide to do so, I could ask you for a good link to a good site? You fucking asshole?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??
> 
> When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....
> 
> And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediaite.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Since his betrayal? NOt much. Which does not change the fact that before his betrayal, republicans were really wanted him to run and be President, thus disproving your claim of racism.
> 
> 2. Ever clip of Candice I see, she is kicking some libs ass.  I don't see her as a savior of "black conservativism" so much as just a great conservative. I hope she sticks around forever, and keeps kicking lib ass. If she ever chooses to run for anything, I hope she does well.
> 
> 3.  Alan Keyes was set up for failure by the asshole Country Club Republicans, and flamed out. They did not do it because they are racist assholes, but because they are elitists assholes, who don't like hard core conservatives.  YOu do understand that, right?
> 
> 4. I'm not sure what happened with Watts.
> 
> 5. I did not avoid it. I addressed it. THey were wrong to do so, and I support that fact that the one paid a price for his stupidity.  THe Southern Strategy was a myth. The South became less racist and as that happened, it also became less democratic. Perhaps a coincidence.
Click to expand...

If 2 DNC chairmen came out and issued a statement like that about Democrats -- would you say they were lying, would say it was a mistake, that it's a myth -- or would you be holding it up as proof of something??

Not only did those GOP chairmen issue apologies, then they went on to substantiate those apologies with actual FACTS of what THEIR PARTY ACTUALLY DID..

I just gave you the statement made by Nixon's advisor who ADMITTED that they lost "Negro" support due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act -- why would he feel that??

Furthermore, that has been the Republican strategy every since then -- to disregard the importance of growing the black vote by their policies -- and instead rely on enough self hating black folks to vote for them irregardless of their insistence on appealing to the racist white vote -- which they value over the black vote...period...

For some black republicans who mainly care about getting a possible tax cut if they are in a certain tax bracket -- they can ignore the racism...for some black republicans, there is a self hatred among them that getting that pat on the head for white folks is enough for them to put on a minstrel show 

But the overwhelming majority of others -- their dignity and the sacrifices of those before them prevents them from being a minstrel for the edification of folks like you -- who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that black person's reality because it makes you feel butt hurt...


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
> 
> That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
> 
> 
> If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
> 
> 
> Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?
> 
> 
> YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
Click to expand...

You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...

But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...

Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??

Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??


----------



## IM2

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
> 
> That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
> 
> 
> If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
> 
> 
> Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?
> 
> 
> YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...
> 
> But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...
> 
> Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??
> 
> Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??
Click to expand...

And I bet Correll supported Buchanan.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, thanks for admitting that this thread is just about smearing the Republican Party, as "racist". We all knew that. You don't care about the alleged "topic".
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls proves tha the republican voters of that time, were fine with having a Republican President who had black skin, and by and large were sorry it was not an option. Speaking as a republican, I can assure you that as a group, we would much rather had had Colin Powell as President than the white guy, Bill Fucking Clinton.
> 
> AND the republican voters, are generally MORE conservative than the moderate Country Club Republicans who run the GOP, as demonstrated by their hissy fit when Trump won.
> 
> 
> There are reasons for the way that blacks vote. Historic gop "racism" is not one of them. That is just not true.
Click to expand...

Those '96 exit polls show no such thing as that question was not broken down by political party.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
Click to expand...

*"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*

That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??
> 
> When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....
> 
> And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediaite.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Since his betrayal? NOt much. Which does not change the fact that before his betrayal, republicans were really wanted him to run and be President, thus disproving your claim of racism.
> 
> 2. Ever clip of Candice I see, she is kicking some libs ass.  I don't see her as a savior of "black conservativism" so much as just a great conservative. I hope she sticks around forever, and keeps kicking lib ass. If she ever chooses to run for anything, I hope she does well.
> 
> 3.  Alan Keyes was set up for failure by the asshole Country Club Republicans, and flamed out. They did not do it because they are racist assholes, but because they are elitists assholes, who don't like hard core conservatives.  YOu do understand that, right?
> 
> 4. I'm not sure what happened with Watts.
> 
> 5. I did not avoid it. I addressed it. THey were wrong to do so, and I support that fact that the one paid a price for his stupidity.  THe Southern Strategy was a myth. The South became less racist and as that happened, it also became less democratic. Perhaps a coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If 2 DNC chairmen came out and issued a statement like that about Democrats -- would you say they were lying, would say it was a mistake, that it's a myth -- or would you be holding it up as proof of something??
> 
> Not only did those GOP chairmen issue apologies, then they went on to substantiate those apologies with actual FACTS of what THEIR PARTY ACTUALLY DID..
> 
> I just gave you the statement made by Nixon's advisor who ADMITTED that they lost "Negro" support due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act -- why would he feel that??
> 
> Furthermore, that has been the Republican strategy every since then -- to disregard the importance of growing the black vote by their policies -- and instead rely on enough self hating black folks to vote for them irregardless of their insistence on appealing to the racist white vote -- which they value over the black vote...period...
> 
> For some black republicans who mainly care about getting a possible tax cut if they are in a certain tax bracket -- they can ignore the racism...for some black republicans, there is a self hatred among them that getting that pat on the head for white folks is enough for them to put on a minstrel show
> 
> But the overwhelming majority of others -- their dignity and the sacrifices of those before them prevents them from being a minstrel for the edification of folks like you -- who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that black person's reality because it makes you feel butt hurt...
Click to expand...





1. So, you accept my point about the way the Powell support disproves your claims of gop racism? Cause brought it up and then dropped it immediately.


2. IF two DNC chairman did something like that, I would certainly present it as EVIDENCE of the thing they apologized for. But if the lefty I was talking to, claimed that they were wrong to do so, then I would take steps to prove that they were right to do so. It is time for you to give your single strongest point as evidence of the "Southern Strategy". No gish galloping bullshit please.


3. At a guess, I would think that the Nixon advisor was thinking of the way that Johnson was getting the credit for signing the bill, even though it has strong bi-partisan support in Congress. 

4. The GOP did nothing for the "racist white vote", that is just you being a race baiting asshole.

5. The black vote began shifting to the dems, under FDR, in the 30s, because of the New Deal programs, a good thirty years before the dems stopped being the Party of Jim Crow. So, it was not "republican racism" that moved that change.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
> 
> That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
> 
> 
> If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
> 
> 
> Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?
> 
> 
> YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...
> 
> But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...
> 
> Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??
> 
> Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??
Click to expand...




Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that the REpublican Party has been the party of Evul White Racism since the "Southern Strategy" was implemented sometime in the 60s when we shitcanned the black voters and starting pandering to the Evul white racist voters.


If that was true, the GOP voters would not have been willing to support a black man to be the most powerful man in the world.


That "some poll" demonstrates a behavior in GOP voters, that conflicts with your version of who we are. 


Patrick Buchanan? He's a little off topic if  your topic is "black presidential candidates". Not so much if all this is is race baiting from you. Like I say it is. ANd you deny admitting it is.  


So, you want to talk about Pat, or not?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
> 
> That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
> 
> 
> If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
> 
> 
> Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?
> 
> 
> YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...
> 
> But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...
> 
> Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??
> 
> Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I bet Correll supported Buchanan.
Click to expand...


Damn straight I did. The world would be such a better place if HE had won. But, it is off topic, in a thread about black presidential candidates.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??
> 
> When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....
> 
> And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediaite.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Since his betrayal? NOt much. Which does not change the fact that before his betrayal, republicans were really wanted him to run and be President, thus disproving your claim of racism.
> 
> 2. Ever clip of Candice I see, she is kicking some libs ass.  I don't see her as a savior of "black conservativism" so much as just a great conservative. I hope she sticks around forever, and keeps kicking lib ass. If she ever chooses to run for anything, I hope she does well.
> 
> 3.  Alan Keyes was set up for failure by the asshole Country Club Republicans, and flamed out. They did not do it because they are racist assholes, but because they are elitists assholes, who don't like hard core conservatives.  YOu do understand that, right?
> 
> 4. I'm not sure what happened with Watts.
> 
> 5. I did not avoid it. I addressed it. THey were wrong to do so, and I support that fact that the one paid a price for his stupidity.  THe Southern Strategy was a myth. The South became less racist and as that happened, it also became less democratic. Perhaps a coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If 2 DNC chairmen came out and issued a statement like that about Democrats -- would you say they were lying, would say it was a mistake, that it's a myth -- or would you be holding it up as proof of something??
> 
> Not only did those GOP chairmen issue apologies, then they went on to substantiate those apologies with actual FACTS of what THEIR PARTY ACTUALLY DID..
> 
> I just gave you the statement made by Nixon's advisor who ADMITTED that they lost "Negro" support due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act -- why would he feel that??
> 
> Furthermore, that has been the Republican strategy every since then -- to disregard the importance of growing the black vote by their policies -- and instead rely on enough self hating black folks to vote for them irregardless of their insistence on appealing to the racist white vote -- which they value over the black vote...period...
> 
> For some black republicans who mainly care about getting a possible tax cut if they are in a certain tax bracket -- they can ignore the racism...for some black republicans, there is a self hatred among them that getting that pat on the head for white folks is enough for them to put on a minstrel show
> 
> But the overwhelming majority of others -- their dignity and the sacrifices of those before them prevents them from being a minstrel for the edification of folks like you -- who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that black person's reality because it makes you feel butt hurt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you accept my point about the way the Powell support disproves your claims of gop racism? Cause brought it up and then dropped it immediately.
> 
> 
> 2. IF two DNC chairman did something like that, I would certainly present it as EVIDENCE of the thing they apologized for. But if the lefty I was talking to, claimed that they were wrong to do so, then I would take steps to prove that they were right to do so. It is time for you to give your single strongest point as evidence of the "Southern Strategy". No gish galloping bullshit please.
> 
> 
> 3. At a guess, I would think that the Nixon advisor was thinking of the way that Johnson was getting the credit for signing the bill, even though it has strong bi-partisan support in Congress.
> 
> 4. The GOP did nothing for the "racist white vote", that is just you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> 5. The black vote began shifting to the dems, under FDR, in the 30s, because of the New Deal programs, a good thirty years before the dems stopped being the Party of Jim Crow. So, it was not "republican racism" that moved that change.
Click to expand...

1. -- No I do not accept that point because of the point someone else pointed out earlier -- that you still haven't addressed.....

2. Not only was what the GOP chairmen admitted, evidence...I then went on to substantiate that further -- but since you suffer from cognitive dissonance and think gaslighting is a debate tactic -- you ignore all of the evidence and keep arguing bullshit..which is why everyone has slapped you up and down this post.....

3. That Nixon advisor was talking about the southern strategy...the same thing 2 GOP chairmen apologized for......LBJ got credit for signing the bill, but LBJ died decades ago...so my guess is that black voters continued to vote democrat because of the POLICIES, not because of LBJ or any other "PERSON" -- morons like you fixate on people and personalities because you know policy wise, you don't offer much to those black voters you have such disdain for...

4. Yes, the GOP did do much for the racist white vote.....here is another piece of evidence from another GOP strategist that you will most likely ignore because it will blow your delusions out of the water...again....there is a reason why what Lee Atwater said is so famous....first..because he was Reagan's advisor....and second.....because it is 1000% backed up by FACTS and republican policy....




5. And here is when you morons start twisting yourselves into pretzels...."Democrats stopped being the party of Jim Crow" ---  yes they did....conservatives didn't....one party was more open to appeasing those racist conservatives than the other.....So in other words, blacks supported policies and voted based on those policies...and because of that, its morons like you who call those black voters "slaves on a plantation" for voting for policies they support.....


I don't waste my time slapping you around because I think it will illicit an admission of wrong from you -- I do it so you will be reminded as to why that bullshit you running ain't working when it comes to your party growing the black vote...now go bathe or do something constructive


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
> 
> That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
> 
> 
> If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
> 
> 
> Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?
> 
> 
> YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...
> 
> But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...
> 
> Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??
> 
> Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that the REpublican Party has been the party of Evul White Racism since the "Southern Strategy" was implemented sometime in the 60s when we shitcanned the black voters and starting pandering to the Evul white racist voters.
> 
> 
> If that was true, the GOP voters would not have been willing to support a black man to be the most powerful man in the world.
> 
> 
> That "some poll" demonstrates a behavior in GOP voters, that conflicts with your version of who we are.
> 
> 
> Patrick Buchanan? He's a little off topic if  your topic is "black presidential candidates". Not so much if all this is is race baiting from you. Like I say it is. ANd you deny admitting it is.
> 
> 
> So, you want to talk about Pat, or not?
Click to expand...

Conservatives care about power....they would nominate a black man if they thought he would help them win.....but since they have not, they still don't think one will help them win...

because the minute that "black man" goes off script and tells the truth about the racist nature of the conservative doctrine -- they call them traitors....just like you did Collin Powelll

Which tells me, you take black candidates as being nothing but a monkey in a suit for your entertainment -- as long as they don't sing a song you don't like....


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, thanks for admitting that this thread is just about smearing the Republican Party, as "racist". We all knew that. You don't care about the alleged "topic".
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls proves tha the republican voters of that time, were fine with having a Republican President who had black skin, and by and large were sorry it was not an option. Speaking as a republican, I can assure you that as a group, we would much rather had had Colin Powell as President than the white guy, Bill Fucking Clinton.
> 
> AND the republican voters, are generally MORE conservative than the moderate Country Club Republicans who run the GOP, as demonstrated by their hissy fit when Trump won.
> 
> 
> There are reasons for the way that blacks vote. Historic gop "racism" is not one of them. That is just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those '96 exit polls show no such thing as that question was not broken down by political party.
Click to expand...



Sure  they weren't. Of course, there were plenty of polls showing high support for Powell among republican before that. And low support for him among black dems. And not a lot of dems willing to cross party lines to vote for him. Some, but the same old Reagan Dems, not anyone new.


So, when, just a few weeks later, the exit polls show him winning, if he had run,

of course, *you* would assume a sudden drop off in support from white republican and a massive increase in support from black and white dem voters to explain the crushing victory he would have won.


Because otherwise, you would have face the possibility that your whole world view is a pack of self delusional lies.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
Click to expand...




In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.


I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then. 


But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.


If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it. 


Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??
> 
> When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....
> 
> And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediaite.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Since his betrayal? NOt much. Which does not change the fact that before his betrayal, republicans were really wanted him to run and be President, thus disproving your claim of racism.
> 
> 2. Ever clip of Candice I see, she is kicking some libs ass.  I don't see her as a savior of "black conservativism" so much as just a great conservative. I hope she sticks around forever, and keeps kicking lib ass. If she ever chooses to run for anything, I hope she does well.
> 
> 3.  Alan Keyes was set up for failure by the asshole Country Club Republicans, and flamed out. They did not do it because they are racist assholes, but because they are elitists assholes, who don't like hard core conservatives.  YOu do understand that, right?
> 
> 4. I'm not sure what happened with Watts.
> 
> 5. I did not avoid it. I addressed it. THey were wrong to do so, and I support that fact that the one paid a price for his stupidity.  THe Southern Strategy was a myth. The South became less racist and as that happened, it also became less democratic. Perhaps a coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If 2 DNC chairmen came out and issued a statement like that about Democrats -- would you say they were lying, would say it was a mistake, that it's a myth -- or would you be holding it up as proof of something??
> 
> Not only did those GOP chairmen issue apologies, then they went on to substantiate those apologies with actual FACTS of what THEIR PARTY ACTUALLY DID..
> 
> I just gave you the statement made by Nixon's advisor who ADMITTED that they lost "Negro" support due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act -- why would he feel that??
> 
> Furthermore, that has been the Republican strategy every since then -- to disregard the importance of growing the black vote by their policies -- and instead rely on enough self hating black folks to vote for them irregardless of their insistence on appealing to the racist white vote -- which they value over the black vote...period...
> 
> For some black republicans who mainly care about getting a possible tax cut if they are in a certain tax bracket -- they can ignore the racism...for some black republicans, there is a self hatred among them that getting that pat on the head for white folks is enough for them to put on a minstrel show
> 
> But the overwhelming majority of others -- their dignity and the sacrifices of those before them prevents them from being a minstrel for the edification of folks like you -- who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that black person's reality because it makes you feel butt hurt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you accept my point about the way the Powell support disproves your claims of gop racism? Cause brought it up and then dropped it immediately.
> 
> 
> 2. IF two DNC chairman did something like that, I would certainly present it as EVIDENCE of the thing they apologized for. But if the lefty I was talking to, claimed that they were wrong to do so, then I would take steps to prove that they were right to do so. It is time for you to give your single strongest point as evidence of the "Southern Strategy". No gish galloping bullshit please.
> 
> 
> 3. At a guess, I would think that the Nixon advisor was thinking of the way that Johnson was getting the credit for signing the bill, even though it has strong bi-partisan support in Congress.
> 
> 4. The GOP did nothing for the "racist white vote", that is just you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> 5. The black vote began shifting to the dems, under FDR, in the 30s, because of the New Deal programs, a good thirty years before the dems stopped being the Party of Jim Crow. So, it was not "republican racism" that moved that change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. -- No I do not accept that point because of the point someone else pointed out earlier -- that you still haven't addressed.....
> 
> 2. Not only was what the GOP chairmen admitted, evidence...I then went on to substantiate that further -- but since you suffer from cognitive dissonance and think gaslighting is a debate tactic -- you ignore all of the evidence and keep arguing bullshit..which is why everyone has slapped you up and down this post.....
> 
> 3. That Nixon advisor was talking about the southern strategy...the same thing 2 GOP chairmen apologized for......LBJ got credit for signing the bill, but LBJ died decades ago...so my guess is that black voters continued to vote democrat because of the POLICIES, not because of LBJ or any other "PERSON" -- morons like you fixate on people and personalities because you know policy wise, you don't offer much to those black voters you have such disdain for...
> 
> 4. Yes, the GOP did do much for the racist white vote.....here is another piece of evidence from another GOP strategist that you will most likely ignore because it will blow your delusions out of the water...again....there is a reason why what Lee Atwater said is so famous....first..because he was Reagan's advisor....and second.....because it is 1000% backed up by FACTS and republican policy....View attachment 315559
> 
> 
> 5. And here is when you morons start twisting yourselves into pretzels...."Democrats stopped being the party of Jim Crow" ---  yes they did....conservatives didn't....one party was more open to appeasing those racist conservatives than the other.....So in other words, blacks supported policies and voted based on those policies...and because of that, its morons like you who call those black voters "slaves on a plantation" for voting for policies they support.....
> 
> 
> I don't waste my time slapping you around because I think it will illicit an admission of wrong from you -- I do it so you will be reminded as to why that bullshit you running ain't working when it comes to your party growing the black vote...now go bathe or do something constructive
Click to expand...





1.  If the GOP was as racist as you claim, then the GOP voters would not have been supportive of a possible Powell President. The support showed by the gop voters for Powell, prove your accusations of racism wrong.


2.  Steele was mistaken. He came along decades after the fact and was talking about shit he knew nothing about.

3.  You are jumping all over the place here. Yes, Johnson got the credit for signing the bill, even though the republicans wrote it and supported it even more strongly than dems did. And you dems have been lying like that ever since.


4. Atwater,decades after the fact, talking about "Forced busing"? You know who enforced busing more than anyone else? Especially in the South? Richard Fucking Nixon. So much for pandering to the white racists. So much for Atwater. 

5. We republicans were never the party of Jim Crow. YOu are full of shit.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, thanks for admitting that this thread is just about smearing the Republican Party, as "racist". We all knew that. You don't care about the alleged "topic".
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls proves tha the republican voters of that time, were fine with having a Republican President who had black skin, and by and large were sorry it was not an option. Speaking as a republican, I can assure you that as a group, we would much rather had had Colin Powell as President than the white guy, Bill Fucking Clinton.
> 
> AND the republican voters, are generally MORE conservative than the moderate Country Club Republicans who run the GOP, as demonstrated by their hissy fit when Trump won.
> 
> 
> There are reasons for the way that blacks vote. Historic gop "racism" is not one of them. That is just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those '96 exit polls show no such thing as that question was not broken down by political party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure  they weren't. Of course, there were plenty of polls showing high support for Powell among republican before that. And low support for him among black dems. And not a lot of dems willing to cross party lines to vote for him. Some, but the same old Reagan Dems, not anyone new.
> 
> 
> So, when, just a few weeks later, the exit polls show him winning, if he had run,
> 
> of course, *you* would assume a sudden drop off in support from white republican and a massive increase in support from black and white dem voters to explain the crushing victory he would have won.
> 
> 
> Because otherwise, you would have face the possibility that your whole world view is a pack of self delusional lies.
Click to expand...

Again, the exit polls don't reflect Republicans -- they reflect candidates. 68% of Dole voters said they would vote for Powell. 24% of Clinton voters said they would vote for Powell. How the fuck you translate that into Republicans is anyone's guess.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
> 
> That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
> 
> 
> If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
> 
> 
> Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?
> 
> 
> YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...
> 
> But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...
> 
> Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??
> 
> Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that the REpublican Party has been the party of Evul White Racism since the "Southern Strategy" was implemented sometime in the 60s when we shitcanned the black voters and starting pandering to the Evul white racist voters.
> 
> 
> If that was true, the GOP voters would not have been willing to support a black man to be the most powerful man in the world.
> 
> 
> That "some poll" demonstrates a behavior in GOP voters, that conflicts with your version of who we are.
> 
> 
> Patrick Buchanan? He's a little off topic if  your topic is "black presidential candidates". Not so much if all this is is race baiting from you. Like I say it is. ANd you deny admitting it is.
> 
> 
> So, you want to talk about Pat, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives care about power....they would nominate a black man if they thought he would help them win.....but since they have not, they still don't think one will help them win...
> 
> because the minute that "black man" goes off script and tells the truth about the racist nature of the conservative doctrine -- they call them traitors....just like you did Collin Powelll
> 
> Which tells me, you take black candidates as being nothing but a monkey in a suit for your entertainment -- as long as they don't sing a song you don't like....
Click to expand...



1. Stripped of your spin, thank you for admitting that conservatives would nominate and elect a black republican. 


2. Tell me, what are the differences you see in how conservative treated Powell, after he "Went off message" and the way we treated John McCain? The old white guy, after he "went off message" again and again?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, thanks for admitting that this thread is just about smearing the Republican Party, as "racist". We all knew that. You don't care about the alleged "topic".
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls proves tha the republican voters of that time, were fine with having a Republican President who had black skin, and by and large were sorry it was not an option. Speaking as a republican, I can assure you that as a group, we would much rather had had Colin Powell as President than the white guy, Bill Fucking Clinton.
> 
> AND the republican voters, are generally MORE conservative than the moderate Country Club Republicans who run the GOP, as demonstrated by their hissy fit when Trump won.
> 
> 
> There are reasons for the way that blacks vote. Historic gop "racism" is not one of them. That is just not true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Those '96 exit polls show no such thing as that question was not broken down by political party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure  they weren't. Of course, there were plenty of polls showing high support for Powell among republican before that. And low support for him among black dems. And not a lot of dems willing to cross party lines to vote for him. Some, but the same old Reagan Dems, not anyone new.
> 
> 
> So, when, just a few weeks later, the exit polls show him winning, if he had run,
> 
> of course, *you* would assume a sudden drop off in support from white republican and a massive increase in support from black and white dem voters to explain the crushing victory he would have won.
> 
> 
> Because otherwise, you would have face the possibility that your whole world view is a pack of self delusional lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, the exit polls don't reflect Republicans -- they reflect candidates. 68% of Dole voters said they would vote for Powell. 24% of Clinton voters said they would vote for Powell. How the fuck you translate that into Republicans is anyone's guess.
Click to expand...




I covered that in the post you just "replied to" Go back and read it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
Click to expand...

Besides you, no one cares what you hope for. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.

And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??
> 
> When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....
> 
> And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediaite.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Since his betrayal? NOt much. Which does not change the fact that before his betrayal, republicans were really wanted him to run and be President, thus disproving your claim of racism.
> 
> 2. Ever clip of Candice I see, she is kicking some libs ass.  I don't see her as a savior of "black conservativism" so much as just a great conservative. I hope she sticks around forever, and keeps kicking lib ass. If she ever chooses to run for anything, I hope she does well.
> 
> 3.  Alan Keyes was set up for failure by the asshole Country Club Republicans, and flamed out. They did not do it because they are racist assholes, but because they are elitists assholes, who don't like hard core conservatives.  YOu do understand that, right?
> 
> 4. I'm not sure what happened with Watts.
> 
> 5. I did not avoid it. I addressed it. THey were wrong to do so, and I support that fact that the one paid a price for his stupidity.  THe Southern Strategy was a myth. The South became less racist and as that happened, it also became less democratic. Perhaps a coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If 2 DNC chairmen came out and issued a statement like that about Democrats -- would you say they were lying, would say it was a mistake, that it's a myth -- or would you be holding it up as proof of something??
> 
> Not only did those GOP chairmen issue apologies, then they went on to substantiate those apologies with actual FACTS of what THEIR PARTY ACTUALLY DID..
> 
> I just gave you the statement made by Nixon's advisor who ADMITTED that they lost "Negro" support due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act -- why would he feel that??
> 
> Furthermore, that has been the Republican strategy every since then -- to disregard the importance of growing the black vote by their policies -- and instead rely on enough self hating black folks to vote for them irregardless of their insistence on appealing to the racist white vote -- which they value over the black vote...period...
> 
> For some black republicans who mainly care about getting a possible tax cut if they are in a certain tax bracket -- they can ignore the racism...for some black republicans, there is a self hatred among them that getting that pat on the head for white folks is enough for them to put on a minstrel show
> 
> But the overwhelming majority of others -- their dignity and the sacrifices of those before them prevents them from being a minstrel for the edification of folks like you -- who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that black person's reality because it makes you feel butt hurt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you accept my point about the way the Powell support disproves your claims of gop racism? Cause brought it up and then dropped it immediately.
> 
> 
> 2. IF two DNC chairman did something like that, I would certainly present it as EVIDENCE of the thing they apologized for. But if the lefty I was talking to, claimed that they were wrong to do so, then I would take steps to prove that they were right to do so. It is time for you to give your single strongest point as evidence of the "Southern Strategy". No gish galloping bullshit please.
> 
> 
> 3. At a guess, I would think that the Nixon advisor was thinking of the way that Johnson was getting the credit for signing the bill, even though it has strong bi-partisan support in Congress.
> 
> 4. The GOP did nothing for the "racist white vote", that is just you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> 5. The black vote began shifting to the dems, under FDR, in the 30s, because of the New Deal programs, a good thirty years before the dems stopped being the Party of Jim Crow. So, it was not "republican racism" that moved that change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. -- No I do not accept that point because of the point someone else pointed out earlier -- that you still haven't addressed.....
> 
> 2. Not only was what the GOP chairmen admitted, evidence...I then went on to substantiate that further -- but since you suffer from cognitive dissonance and think gaslighting is a debate tactic -- you ignore all of the evidence and keep arguing bullshit..which is why everyone has slapped you up and down this post.....
> 
> 3. That Nixon advisor was talking about the southern strategy...the same thing 2 GOP chairmen apologized for......LBJ got credit for signing the bill, but LBJ died decades ago...so my guess is that black voters continued to vote democrat because of the POLICIES, not because of LBJ or any other "PERSON" -- morons like you fixate on people and personalities because you know policy wise, you don't offer much to those black voters you have such disdain for...
> 
> 4. Yes, the GOP did do much for the racist white vote.....here is another piece of evidence from another GOP strategist that you will most likely ignore because it will blow your delusions out of the water...again....there is a reason why what Lee Atwater said is so famous....first..because he was Reagan's advisor....and second.....because it is 1000% backed up by FACTS and republican policy....View attachment 315559
> 
> 
> 5. And here is when you morons start twisting yourselves into pretzels...."Democrats stopped being the party of Jim Crow" ---  yes they did....conservatives didn't....one party was more open to appeasing those racist conservatives than the other.....So in other words, blacks supported policies and voted based on those policies...and because of that, its morons like you who call those black voters "slaves on a plantation" for voting for policies they support.....
> 
> 
> I don't waste my time slapping you around because I think it will illicit an admission of wrong from you -- I do it so you will be reminded as to why that bullshit you running ain't working when it comes to your party growing the black vote...now go bathe or do something constructive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  If the GOP was as racist as you claim, then the GOP voters would not have been supportive of a possible Powell President. The support showed by the gop voters for Powell, prove your accusations of racism wrong.
> 
> 
> 2.  Steele was mistaken. He came along decades after the fact and was talking about shit he knew nothing about.
> 
> 3.  You are jumping all over the place here. Yes, Johnson got the credit for signing the bill, even though the republicans wrote it and supported it even more strongly than dems did. And you dems have been lying like that ever since.
> 
> 
> 4. Atwater,decades after the fact, talking about "Forced busing"? You know who enforced busing more than anyone else? Especially in the South? Richard Fucking Nixon. So much for pandering to the white racists. So much for Atwater.
> 
> 5. We republicans were never the party of Jim Crow. YOu are full of shit.
Click to expand...


1. I didn't say the GOP is racist because they didn't support a black candidate -- I asked you what possible black candidates would republicans support -- you couldn't name any....and the best you could do is offer a guy that you yourself called a traitor -- not for his role in the war in Iraq -- but because he said ""I Still See" The "Dark Vein" Of Racism In Repubicans & America" now if lifelong black republicans are saying that about their own party -- why would I care about what a closet racist thinks?

2. I like how you point out that Steele was mistaken, but I told you that 2 GOP chairmen said this...but since you probably want to pretend that Ken Mehlman never existed, you don't mention him....Ken Mehlman is also the same guy who apologized for the GOP's demonization of gays for political advantage...which was particularly pathetic in Ken's case, because he was gay....but, that is what self hate does to you...

3. Name the guy who you think wrote the "BI-PARTISAN BILL" -- and when you do...I will continue to make you look stupid...

4. So you are claiming that Richard Nixon was a champion against racism?? Bawahahahahaha....I know you hate the fact that its the Conservatives who are constantly on the wrong side of Civil Rights.....you lying about it won't change that reality...

5. You conservatives have ALWAYS been the party of Jim Crow -- I don't give a fuck about your party labels...


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
Click to expand...



So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.



I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.


And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.


Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.

Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved. 










						Colin Powell - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





"Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "

"Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
Click to expand...

So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...

Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??

What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??

Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...

Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....

Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....

And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republicans struggle to elect blacks to Congress. Electing one as president won't happen in this century.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know why this is an issue for Democrats in the first place since they don't like conservatives anyway. If you don't like conservatives or conservative values, you're not going to like a black Republican. And if a black Republican does get nominated, it's unlikely he/she would be elected and Democrats would be largely responsible for this. The reason being because a lot of black Democrats already consider conservative blacks as sellouts and Uncle Toms.
> 
> All of this nonsense about black Republican presidential nominees is just farting in a hurricane. Speaking for myself, I don't care how many blacks the Republican party has. A black person will either choose to be Republican or not, I don't give a shit and I don't want some kind of quota. If the Republican party doesn't have what a black person wants, shut the fuck up and become a Democrat. Same goes for white people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So a black Republican can't get elected without support from Democrats?
> 
> Thanks for admitting that many Republicans and conservatives are racist. I already knew that but it's nice to see your side admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell would have easily defeated Bill Clinton according to exit polls in 1996. I would have happily voted for him against Bill Clinton. Some of my republican friends were really big fans of his.
> 
> That not many blacks would likely have crossed party lines, would not have mattered, and actually, imo, would have been a good thing.
> 
> I don't know why Ghost thinks that a black republican candidate would not win, or could not win without black dem voters. But he is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> If he's incorrect, where is the black Republican president? ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell did not run because he did not have a "passion for politics".  That is where the most recent chance of a black republican President went.
> 
> 
> Can you blame him? You libs are fucking nightmares to deal with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take the log out of your eye, you rightards are also nightmares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, you admit it. THe primary reason that Colin Power did not run, was him not wanting the job.
> 
> 
> Can you admit that he would have been a strong contender for the nomination, if he had run, as the polling showed?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I admitted nothing about Powell, ya flaming moron. I didn't follow Powell to know if he was or was not thinking about running; or if so, why not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too".
> 
> 
> That is an admission that you libs make the job not desirable.
> 
> 
> 
> You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?
> 
> 
> LOL!!! Well, that is completely credible for a lib. I accept your defense of ignorance.
> 
> 
> You can either trust me on this, or go read up on it, and get back to me when you are caught up. Plenty on this issue online.
> 
> Your call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"YOur defense to "you libs make the job not a good choice" was, "you too"."*
> 
> So? Are you so blind you can't see both sides attack each other in the manner you only cry about the left?
> 
> *"You choose to enter a thread on Black Republican Presidents while being ignorant on the most likely to get elected potential candidate ever?"*
> 
> You said he had no passion for politics. That's your idea of the most likely black Republican to get elected? Ever???
> 
> Do you even have an idea of how stupid you sound?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. Your defense is ignorance. You've admitted to being ignorant on the subject.
> 
> 
> Go educate yourself. It will only take a few minutes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[51] "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Moron, you're literally claiming your best shot at electing a Black Republican is someone who never ran for office nor wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls showed him winning handily over Bill Clinton, as a Republican with the Republican voters very strongly supporting him.
> 
> 
> That right there refutes the point of the op, ie that republicans are racist that is why no black republican presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exit polls are meaningless when the topic is someone who's not running.
> 
> Still -- you claim your best shot to get a black Republican as president is someone who didn't want the job.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of polls. They ask the person who they would vote for minutes after the point of voting, and they only get data from voters.
> 
> 
> The high numbers that Powell got, showed that Republicans were ready for a black President back in 1996, and considering the strength of the results, well before that.
> 
> 
> That alone refutes the point of the op, that the lack of black Republican Presidents is caused by "racism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't say exit polls are meaningless -- I said that one question is meaningless. Saying you'd vote for someone who's not running doesn't actually prove Republicans would have elected a black.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When an absolute majority of voters, primary made of republicans say they would have voted for a black republican, it does.
> 
> 
> And that refutes the point of the op.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Saying you will vote for someone who's not running means nothing since that still doesn't get a black Republican elected. You remain an abject imbecile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It demonstrates that the Republican Party has been ready for a Black President, decades ago.
> 
> 
> That is relevant to the discussion, when so many lefties like to pretend to believe that the reason for the lack of black republicans or black republican presidents, is gop racism.
> 
> 
> Hard data shows that that is a race baiting lie, made by vile liars.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and I assume the reason why there is such overwhelming support by black voters for the Democrat party is because of Democrat racism??
> 
> You know, there is also overwhelming support for the Democrat party on behalf of Jewish voters too...is that because of Democrat Anti-Semitism??
> 
> If your friend told you that there was a party happening tonight and there were gonna be a bunch of ladies there -- then when you get there -- its only one lady there and 400 guys -- would that still be considered a party with a bunch of ladies there?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. NOt at all. But it is not because the guys are fags who don't like the ladies.
> 
> 
> Have you never been at a party, where there was as dearth of women, and it was not because the men there disliked women?
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending to be stupid about this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you are going to deflect this badly -- just don't comment at all...
> 
> You purposely avoided 99% of what I said just to focus on the fact, you attended parties with no ladies there....most conservatives have...
> 
> But that is for your therapist to work thru with you.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You took my point, that the lack of black republicans is not because of republican racism, and turned it into a strawman.
> 
> 
> ie that my point somehow implied that the dems were. Which does not follow.
> 
> 
> The republican party not having anti-black racism, in no way implies that the dems DO.
> 
> 
> Watch this. I don't believe in bigfoot.
> 
> 
> Does that statement read to you, like I am accusing you of believing in bigfoot?
> 
> 
> 
> My point stands. THere are reasons that we have not had a black republican president, yet. GOP racism is not one of those reasons.
> 
> 
> AS proved by the 96 exit polls.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's cut to the chase.....
> 
> The reason there are so few black people voting  republican, is the same reason why there are so few black people elected as republicans, and that its the same reason so many of you folks here have had a difficult time answering my question...
> 
> The reason is in large part due to the historical racism of conservatives....both in rhetoric and most importantly in POLICY....And those conservatives of course, now happens to be predominantly affiliated with the republican party...
> 
> This is why 2 republican party chairmen had to issue apologies and offer mea culpas to try to own up to this reality....and when they did, they were attacked and ran out of their positions.....but I will let a black republican explain this to you himself...
> 
> “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South" -- The genteel phrase dates back to Nixon aide Kevin Phillips, who explained to The New York Times in 1970: “From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that.”
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Michael Steele on Why African-Americans Should Vote Republican: “You Really Don't Have a Reason to, to Be Honest”
> 
> 
> From Wonkette.On Tuesday, No. 1 successful adult Michael Steele, current chairman of the Republican National Committee, described the G.O.P.’s political offensive thusly: “For the last 40-plus years we had a 'Southern Strategy' that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vanityfair.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember, this guy was attacked for issuing an apology for use of the "Southern Strategy" -- he lost his position as GOP chairman even tho he helped republicans win more seats since 1928 and broke fund raising records.....and he still remains a republican because to him, the current racism of his party isn't a deal breaker for him....for many other black voters, it is a deal breaker...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> THAK YOU!
> 
> These racists don't want to admit we are smarter than white racists and that we have decided en masse to not join a party full of racists. They'll get 2-3 percent of black people, because there are 2-3 percent of blacks who are dumb enough to ignore the racism. But until the republican party changes its leadership and begins rejecting its base to honestly reach out to black voters, thing will remain as they are, at least on the national level.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The 96 exit polls prove that the GOP is not full of racists. Racists would not be happy with the idea of a black man as President.
> 
> Your position is stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By the way....what do those "republican voters" think about Collin Powell now??
> 
> When you morons are trotting out minstrels like Candace Owens as saviors of the "black conservative" movement -- how come no one is talking to Alan Keyes, JC Watts, the ones you told us where supposed to be saviors of the movement....
> 
> And why have you avoided what I said that not 1, but 2 republican party chairman apologized for using the racist southern strategy during the 60's, 70's on into the 80's...were they lying??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white vote was wrong
> 
> 
> GOP renounces '60s racial strategy / Party chair says using divisive issues to win white...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.sfgate.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RNC Chair Michael Steele Confesses to Race-Based Southern Strategy
> 
> 
> Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele made an admission, this week, that was both stunning and obvious. Speaking to a group of DePaul University students, Steele was asked why a black person should vote for a Republican. In responding, Steele put on the record the political...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.mediaite.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  Since his betrayal? NOt much. Which does not change the fact that before his betrayal, republicans were really wanted him to run and be President, thus disproving your claim of racism.
> 
> 2. Ever clip of Candice I see, she is kicking some libs ass.  I don't see her as a savior of "black conservativism" so much as just a great conservative. I hope she sticks around forever, and keeps kicking lib ass. If she ever chooses to run for anything, I hope she does well.
> 
> 3.  Alan Keyes was set up for failure by the asshole Country Club Republicans, and flamed out. They did not do it because they are racist assholes, but because they are elitists assholes, who don't like hard core conservatives.  YOu do understand that, right?
> 
> 4. I'm not sure what happened with Watts.
> 
> 5. I did not avoid it. I addressed it. THey were wrong to do so, and I support that fact that the one paid a price for his stupidity.  THe Southern Strategy was a myth. The South became less racist and as that happened, it also became less democratic. Perhaps a coincidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If 2 DNC chairmen came out and issued a statement like that about Democrats -- would you say they were lying, would say it was a mistake, that it's a myth -- or would you be holding it up as proof of something??
> 
> Not only did those GOP chairmen issue apologies, then they went on to substantiate those apologies with actual FACTS of what THEIR PARTY ACTUALLY DID..
> 
> I just gave you the statement made by Nixon's advisor who ADMITTED that they lost "Negro" support due to the passage of the Civil Rights Act -- why would he feel that??
> 
> Furthermore, that has been the Republican strategy every since then -- to disregard the importance of growing the black vote by their policies -- and instead rely on enough self hating black folks to vote for them irregardless of their insistence on appealing to the racist white vote -- which they value over the black vote...period...
> 
> For some black republicans who mainly care about getting a possible tax cut if they are in a certain tax bracket -- they can ignore the racism...for some black republicans, there is a self hatred among them that getting that pat on the head for white folks is enough for them to put on a minstrel show
> 
> But the overwhelming majority of others -- their dignity and the sacrifices of those before them prevents them from being a minstrel for the edification of folks like you -- who can't even bring themselves to acknowledge that black person's reality because it makes you feel butt hurt...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. So, you accept my point about the way the Powell support disproves your claims of gop racism? Cause brought it up and then dropped it immediately.
> 
> 
> 2. IF two DNC chairman did something like that, I would certainly present it as EVIDENCE of the thing they apologized for. But if the lefty I was talking to, claimed that they were wrong to do so, then I would take steps to prove that they were right to do so. It is time for you to give your single strongest point as evidence of the "Southern Strategy". No gish galloping bullshit please.
> 
> 
> 3. At a guess, I would think that the Nixon advisor was thinking of the way that Johnson was getting the credit for signing the bill, even though it has strong bi-partisan support in Congress.
> 
> 4. The GOP did nothing for the "racist white vote", that is just you being a race baiting asshole.
> 
> 5. The black vote began shifting to the dems, under FDR, in the 30s, because of the New Deal programs, a good thirty years before the dems stopped being the Party of Jim Crow. So, it was not "republican racism" that moved that change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. -- No I do not accept that point because of the point someone else pointed out earlier -- that you still haven't addressed.....
> 
> 2. Not only was what the GOP chairmen admitted, evidence...I then went on to substantiate that further -- but since you suffer from cognitive dissonance and think gaslighting is a debate tactic -- you ignore all of the evidence and keep arguing bullshit..which is why everyone has slapped you up and down this post.....
> 
> 3. That Nixon advisor was talking about the southern strategy...the same thing 2 GOP chairmen apologized for......LBJ got credit for signing the bill, but LBJ died decades ago...so my guess is that black voters continued to vote democrat because of the POLICIES, not because of LBJ or any other "PERSON" -- morons like you fixate on people and personalities because you know policy wise, you don't offer much to those black voters you have such disdain for...
> 
> 4. Yes, the GOP did do much for the racist white vote.....here is another piece of evidence from another GOP strategist that you will most likely ignore because it will blow your delusions out of the water...again....there is a reason why what Lee Atwater said is so famous....first..because he was Reagan's advisor....and second.....because it is 1000% backed up by FACTS and republican policy....View attachment 315559
> 
> 
> 5. And here is when you morons start twisting yourselves into pretzels...."Democrats stopped being the party of Jim Crow" ---  yes they did....conservatives didn't....one party was more open to appeasing those racist conservatives than the other.....So in other words, blacks supported policies and voted based on those policies...and because of that, its morons like you who call those black voters "slaves on a plantation" for voting for policies they support.....
> 
> 
> I don't waste my time slapping you around because I think it will illicit an admission of wrong from you -- I do it so you will be reminded as to why that bullshit you running ain't working when it comes to your party growing the black vote...now go bathe or do something constructive
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1.  If the GOP was as racist as you claim, then the GOP voters would not have been supportive of a possible Powell President. The support showed by the gop voters for Powell, prove your accusations of racism wrong.
> 
> 
> 2.  Steele was mistaken. He came along decades after the fact and was talking about shit he knew nothing about.
> 
> 3.  You are jumping all over the place here. Yes, Johnson got the credit for signing the bill, even though the republicans wrote it and supported it even more strongly than dems did. And you dems have been lying like that ever since.
> 
> 
> 4. Atwater,decades after the fact, talking about "Forced busing"? You know who enforced busing more than anyone else? Especially in the South? Richard Fucking Nixon. So much for pandering to the white racists. So much for Atwater.
> 
> 5. We republicans were never the party of Jim Crow. YOu are full of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. I didn't say the GOP is racist because they didn't support a black candidate -- I asked you what possible black candidates would republicans support -- you couldn't name any....and the best you could do is offer a guy that you yourself called a traitor -- not for his role in the war in Iraq -- but because he said ""I Still See" The "Dark Vein" Of Racism In Repubicans & America" now if lifelong black republicans are saying that about their own party -- why would I care about what a closet racist thinks?
> 
> 2. I like how you point out that Steele was mistaken, but I told you that 2 GOP chairmen said this...but since you probably want to pretend that Ken Mehlman never existed, you don't mention him....Ken Mehlman is also the same guy who apologized for the GOP's demonization of gays for political advantage...which was particularly pathetic in Ken's case, because he was gay....but, that is what self hate does to you...
> 
> 3. Name the guy who you think wrote the "BI-PARTISAN BILL" -- and when you do...I will continue to make you look stupid...
> 
> 4. So you are claiming that Richard Nixon was a champion against racism?? Bawahahahahaha....I know you hate the fact that its the Conservatives who are constantly on the wrong side of Civil Rights.....you lying about it won't change that reality...
> 
> 5. You conservatives have ALWAYS been the party of Jim Crow -- I don't give a fuck about your party labels...
Click to expand...




1.  You have been saying lots of shit, and jumping back and forth. Alleged gop racism is a recurring accusation and my point stands. If the GOP was as racist as you claim, gop voters would not have supported a possibly Powell Presidency.


2.  Steele was the one I remembered best. And he was wrong. The Southern Strategy has been debunked. It is a myth.


3.  Ok,maybe not written by, but still certainly supported by, higher percentages than the dems.

4.  YOU posted atwater making a claim about the supposed Southern Strategy ie to talk shit about "Forced busing". . Do you not think it is relevant that Nixon's ACTUAL POLICY WAS to massively do, "forced busing"?


5. No, you prefer ideological labels that change meaning massively over time. The better to lie with. The Dems were the party of Jim Crow, the NORTHER LIBERALS ALLIED WITH SOUTHERN RACISTS.  When that alliance was broken, the South moved into play. But on other issues. THe republicans never wavered on civil rights. It is a lie to claim otherwise.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
Click to expand...




1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit. 

2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.

3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.

4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.

5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.

6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.

7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
Click to expand...

LOL

And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.

Plenty of lame excuses though.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
Click to expand...



Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.


"Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.


We both know that that is not true.


NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.



You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
> 
> That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
> 
> 
> If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
> 
> 
> Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?
> 
> 
> YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...
> 
> But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...
> 
> Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??
> 
> Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that the REpublican Party has been the party of Evul White Racism since the "Southern Strategy" was implemented sometime in the 60s when we shitcanned the black voters and starting pandering to the Evul white racist voters.
> 
> 
> If that was true, the GOP voters would not have been willing to support a black man to be the most powerful man in the world.
> 
> 
> That "some poll" demonstrates a behavior in GOP voters, that conflicts with your version of who we are.
> 
> 
> Patrick Buchanan? He's a little off topic if  your topic is "black presidential candidates". Not so much if all this is is race baiting from you. Like I say it is. ANd you deny admitting it is.
> 
> 
> So, you want to talk about Pat, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives care about power....they would nominate a black man if they thought he would help them win.....but since they have not, they still don't think one will help them win...
> 
> because the minute that "black man" goes off script and tells the truth about the racist nature of the conservative doctrine -- they call them traitors....just like you did Collin Powelll
> 
> Which tells me, you take black candidates as being nothing but a monkey in a suit for your entertainment -- as long as they don't sing a song you don't like....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stripped of your spin, thank you for admitting that conservatives would nominate and elect a black republican.
> 
> 
> 2. Tell me, what are the differences you see in how conservative treated Powell, after he "Went off message" and the way we treated John McCain? The old white guy, after he "went off message" again and again?
Click to expand...

The main difference was first...McCain was actually nominated to be president...

Second is...what is it that you think McCain went off message about? Did McCain talk about how the republican party caters its party to racists? Nope.....if he did, he wouldn't have ever got the nomination to begin with....


Then he and Powell would have that in common....keep deflecting tho


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep deflecting??
> 
> I never admitted anything....
> 
> What has been admitted is that your inability to answer my question is EVIDENCE of your own party's racism....
> 
> 
> If someone were to ask a "liberal voter" whom do they feel would make a good black Democrat presidential candidate -- they are not going to go on some long diatribe making excuses for what Democrats did 100 years ago....they are just going to name possible candidates -- many of which are probably candidates who are ALREADY elected to public office.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dem party has the vast majority of potential candidates.
> 
> That the few blacks that are in the party, are so far down the list of potential candidates that I don't know their names, is not evidence of racism.
> 
> 
> If you had asked this question in summer, 1996, I would have had an excellent answer, one a good number of my friends were quite excited about.
> 
> 
> Does that mean to you, that in 1996, the GOP was not "racist",  cause we would have had a name?
> 
> 
> YOur position, is nothing but partisan hackery and race baiting.
> 
> 
> Does it bother you that the potential black candidates all lost in the dem primaries? Is that evidence of "Racism" or just that Biden won?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep bringing up 1996 as to say "that one time, we would have supported a black guy" -- because of some poll...
> 
> But what you don't mention is -- the candidates who actually got the MOST VOTES -- you of all people should be the last to tell me about polls as opposed to actual votes...
> 
> Bob Dole got the most votes...but the guy who had so much support that he didn't drop out until the convention is who??
> 
> Pat Buchanan......do we need to go on about his record on race??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that the REpublican Party has been the party of Evul White Racism since the "Southern Strategy" was implemented sometime in the 60s when we shitcanned the black voters and starting pandering to the Evul white racist voters.
> 
> 
> If that was true, the GOP voters would not have been willing to support a black man to be the most powerful man in the world.
> 
> 
> That "some poll" demonstrates a behavior in GOP voters, that conflicts with your version of who we are.
> 
> 
> Patrick Buchanan? He's a little off topic if  your topic is "black presidential candidates". Not so much if all this is is race baiting from you. Like I say it is. ANd you deny admitting it is.
> 
> 
> So, you want to talk about Pat, or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatives care about power....they would nominate a black man if they thought he would help them win.....but since they have not, they still don't think one will help them win...
> 
> because the minute that "black man" goes off script and tells the truth about the racist nature of the conservative doctrine -- they call them traitors....just like you did Collin Powelll
> 
> Which tells me, you take black candidates as being nothing but a monkey in a suit for your entertainment -- as long as they don't sing a song you don't like....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Stripped of your spin, thank you for admitting that conservatives would nominate and elect a black republican.
> 
> 
> 2. Tell me, what are the differences you see in how conservative treated Powell, after he "Went off message" and the way we treated John McCain? The old white guy, after he "went off message" again and again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The main difference was first...McCain was actually nominated to be president...
> 
> Second is...what is it that you think McCain went off message about? Did McCain talk about how the republican party caters its party to racists? Nope.....if he did, he wouldn't have ever got the nomination to begin with....
> 
> 
> Then he and Powell would have that in common....keep deflecting tho
Click to expand...



The similarity was that they went off message and were the subject of push back because of it. 

McCain, unfortunately was able to fight past that, repeatedly, thanks to non-conservatives in the Party.

Powell, chose not to bother. 


But either way, both were assholes and both were subjected to enmity from Conservatives because of it. Their actions was what got the result. Not their skin color. McCain did not get a pass due to his old white skin. Powell did not get the enmity, when he chose to not run, but later when he chose to bad mouth his former political supporters.

This disproves your claim that the reason we turned on Powell, after he betrayed us, was because of his skin color.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
Click to expand...

LOL

Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
Click to expand...



And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.

Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.


EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
Click to expand...

What is the reason for the lack of black republicans being elected to national office period?

If the GOP had 10% the amount of black republicans in office that Democrats do -- your dumb ass would be touting that as "exculpatory" evidence against the fact that the GOP appeases racist conservatives at the expense of growing their party to appeal to non-white voters, especially black voters...

There is only one black republican in Congress...there were 2 - but Will Hurd was forced out of DC because he made the cardinal sin of addressing racism within his party....kinda like Powell....

Seems to be a theme among you republicans...


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the reason for the lack of black republicans being elected to national office period?
> ....
Click to expand...


Primarily, the lack of blacks in the party. 

The rest of your post, I did not see how it was relevant to anything. 


Certainly not racism. As you have admitted, the GOP has no problem electing a black candidate under the right circumstances.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
Click to expand...

LOL

No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.

And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.

Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
Click to expand...



It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.

That factor is unknown.


BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.


SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.


Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
Click to expand...

Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.

The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the reason for the lack of black republicans being elected to national office period?
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primarily, the lack of blacks in the party.
> 
> The rest of your post, I did not see how it was relevant to anything.
> 
> 
> Certainly not racism. As you have admitted, the GOP has no problem electing a black candidate under the right circumstances.
Click to expand...

So the reason there is only one nationally elected black republican in the GOP is because there are a lack of blacks in the party?

Well hell, this talk of electing a black presidential candidate is WAAAAAAYYYY PREMATURE if you are saying we can't even elect more than 2 black congressional candidates due to a lack of black people in the party....

So how many "blacks" in the party do you say you need to elect, let's say 2 or 3 blacks to national office??

I thought the whole Candace Owens "BLEXIT" thing was working.....how many more black folks in the party do yall need to vote for one nationally? Why aren't the majority of whites you have in the party not enough to get more than one black congressional candidate elected?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
Click to expand...



As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.


Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.


Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.


The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.


And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.


YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run. 


Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?

I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
Click to expand...

You've posted no polls showing how many Republicans would have voted for Powell.

Your lies never stop.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is the reason for the lack of black republicans being elected to national office period?
> ....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Primarily, the lack of blacks in the party.
> 
> The rest of your post, I did not see how it was relevant to anything.
> 
> 
> Certainly not racism. As you have admitted, the GOP has no problem electing a black candidate under the right circumstances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the reason there is only one nationally elected black republican in the GOP is because there are a lack of blacks in the party?
> 
> Well hell, this talk of electing a black presidential candidate is WAAAAAAYYYY PREMATURE if you are saying we can't even elect more than 2 black congressional candidates due to a lack of black people in the party....
> 
> So how many "blacks" in the party do you say you need to elect, let's say 2 or 3 blacks to national office??
> 
> I thought the whole Candace Owens "BLEXIT" thing was working.....how many more black folks in the party do yall need to vote for one nationally? Why aren't the majority of whites you have in the party not enough to get more than one black congressional candidate elected?
Click to expand...




"The"? Funny, do you not understand the meaning of the word "primary"?


Premature? Not at all. Speculative for sure. I have no problem with that. 


The rest of your post, doesn't make any sense to me. What is the point you are trying to make?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've posted no polls showing how many Republicans would have voted for Powell.
> 
> Your lies never stop.
Click to expand...



I didn't say I posted them, I reminded you of them. You do remember them, right?

So, do you want to look at some of the head to head, republican vs democrat polls with the "actual candidates"?


I mean, I know you don't care. So, what is your stated position?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
Click to expand...

*"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*

LOLOLOL

The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_

None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.

You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've posted no polls showing how many Republicans would have voted for Powell.
> 
> Your lies never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I posted them, I reminded you of them. You do remember them, right?
> 
> So, do you want to look at some of the head to head, republican vs democrat polls with the "actual candidates"?
> 
> 
> I mean, I know you don't care. So, what is your stated position?
Click to expand...

You're "reminding" me of something you haven't proven even exists.

Show this thread the polls showing Republican support for Powell. The only one you even cited, the exit poll, does not.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
Click to expand...



It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.


We know that.


BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.


Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. 


1996 is one very good example.


Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've posted no polls showing how many Republicans would have voted for Powell.
> 
> Your lies never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I posted them, I reminded you of them. You do remember them, right?
> 
> So, do you want to look at some of the head to head, republican vs democrat polls with the "actual candidates"?
> 
> 
> I mean, I know you don't care. So, what is your stated position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're "reminding" me of something you haven't proven even exists.
> 
> Show this thread the polls showing Republican support for Powell. The only one you even cited, the exit poll, does not.
Click to expand...



IF i do, and I prove that the majority of republicans would have supported powell, will you admit that republican racism is not the reason for the lack of republican presidents?

Or is this just some silly troll game, where you get off on wasting my time?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
Click to expand...

*"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*

You've yet to prove that.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've posted no polls showing how many Republicans would have voted for Powell.
> 
> Your lies never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I posted them, I reminded you of them. You do remember them, right?
> 
> So, do you want to look at some of the head to head, republican vs democrat polls with the "actual candidates"?
> 
> 
> I mean, I know you don't care. So, what is your stated position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're "reminding" me of something you haven't proven even exists.
> 
> Show this thread the polls showing Republican support for Powell. The only one you even cited, the exit poll, does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IF i do, and I prove that the majority of republicans would have supported powell, will you admit that republican racism is not the reason for the lack of republican presidents?
> 
> Or is this just some silly troll game, where you get off on wasting my time?
Click to expand...

^^^ so nothing.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
Click to expand...




You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've posted no polls showing how many Republicans would have voted for Powell.
> 
> Your lies never stop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't say I posted them, I reminded you of them. You do remember them, right?
> 
> So, do you want to look at some of the head to head, republican vs democrat polls with the "actual candidates"?
> 
> 
> I mean, I know you don't care. So, what is your stated position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're "reminding" me of something you haven't proven even exists.
> 
> Show this thread the polls showing Republican support for Powell. The only one you even cited, the exit poll, does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> IF i do, and I prove that the majority of republicans would have supported powell, will you admit that republican racism is not the reason for the lack of republican presidents?
> 
> Or is this just some silly troll game, where you get off on wasting my time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ so nothing.
Click to expand...



I asked you a question. You did not answer. Here is the question again.



IF i do, and I prove that the majority of republicans would have supported powell, will you admit that republican racism is not the reason for the lack of republican presidents?

Or is this just some silly troll game, where you get off on wasting my time?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
Click to expand...

No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist. 

You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
Click to expand...



LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.


Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time. 


So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....


what exactly?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
Click to expand...

LOL

You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.

Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
Click to expand...




The polls from 96 say otherwise. 









						Colin Powell - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




"Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "


Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly. 


YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You never cease being stupid, do ya?

That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.

And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
Click to expand...



They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear. 


This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.


Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
Click to expand...

*"They show the black republican winning "*

LOL

There was no black Republican running.

Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
Click to expand...


He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.


And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton. 


Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.

And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines, 


it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.
> 
> 
> Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.
> 
> And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,
> 
> 
> it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.
Click to expand...

He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.

You lose again because you're a loser.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.
> 
> 
> Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.
> 
> And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,
> 
> 
> it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.
> 
> You lose again because you're a loser.
Click to expand...



Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.

Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican  support for POwell in 96. 


Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?


Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.
> 
> 
> Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.
> 
> And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,
> 
> 
> it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.
> 
> You lose again because you're a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.
> 
> Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican  support for POwell in 96.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?
> 
> 
> Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.
Click to expand...

LOL

What support??

Dumbfuck, at what point will you realize the only thing you've shown was a link to a link to exit polls which didn't demonstrate political breakdown, and a poll based on one state taken more than 4 months before the election.

Even worse for you, Powell's support came from Moderate and Liberal Republicans...

_New Hampshirites who say they are likely to vote in their state's Republican Presidential primary favor Gen. Colin L. Powell over Senator Bob Dole and the other announced contenders, according to a poll made public today._​​_The survey, conducted by Chris Potholm, who has run a polling operation at Bowdoin College in Maine for two decades, found General Powell drawing *34 percent*, compared with *25 percent* for Mr. Dole, 16 percent for Patrick J. Buchanan and 16 percent undecided. If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent._​​_The poll found that among Republicans describing themselves as *moderates*, General Powell was favored over Mr. Dole by *43 percent to 35 percent*; among liberals, he was favored by *38 percent to 12 percent*._​​_*"The astonishing thing is this is a man who nobody knows is a Republican,"* said Mr. Potholm, a professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin. "For Republican primary voters to embrace somebody to this degree I find truly extraordinary."_​​_The poll, of *300 voters*, was conducted the last week in September. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus six percentage points._​_Other recent polls in New Hampshire -- whose primaries, the first in the nation, are set for Feb. 20 -- have also found General Powell more popular among Republican voters than are the announced candidates._​
So now we see the poll referenced in the wikipedia article *you linked* is actually just 300 Republicans from New Hampshire with a portion of them supporting Powell describing themselves as Moderate or Liberal; and with a margin of error of 6 percentage points.

Now while 300 respondents out of a pool of some 260,000 Republicans is a reasonable sample, the margin of error you get when extrapolating that 300 in a country of some 128 million Republicans is bigger than your IQ.

Even funnier, as you're claiming a poll taken many months before an election is an accurate predictor, that means the latest polls which show Biden winning in November spells certain doom for Impeached Trump.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.
> 
> 
> Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.
> 
> And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,
> 
> 
> it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.
> 
> You lose again because you're a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.
> 
> Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican  support for POwell in 96.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?
> 
> 
> Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What support??
> 
> Dumbfuck, at what point will you realize the only thing you've shown was a link to a link to exit polls which didn't demonstrate political breakdown, and a poll based on one state taken more than 4 months before the election.
> 
> Even worse for you, Powell's support came from Moderate and Liberal Republicans...
> 
> _New Hampshirites who say they are likely to vote in their state's Republican Presidential primary favor Gen. Colin L. Powell over Senator Bob Dole and the other announced contenders, according to a poll made public today._​​_The survey, conducted by Chris Potholm, who has run a polling operation at Bowdoin College in Maine for two decades, found General Powell drawing *34 percent*, compared with *25 percent* for Mr. Dole, 16 percent for Patrick J. Buchanan and 16 percent undecided. If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent._​​_The poll found that among Republicans describing themselves as *moderates*, General Powell was favored over Mr. Dole by *43 percent to 35 percent*; among liberals, he was favored by *38 percent to 12 percent*._​​_*"The astonishing thing is this is a man who nobody knows is a Republican,"* said Mr. Potholm, a professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin. "For Republican primary voters to embrace somebody to this degree I find truly extraordinary."_​​_The poll, of *300 voters*, was conducted the last week in September. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus six percentage points._​_Other recent polls in New Hampshire -- whose primaries, the first in the nation, are set for Feb. 20 -- have also found General Powell more popular among Republican voters than are the announced candidates._​
> So now we see the poll referenced in the wikipedia article *you linked* is actually just 300 Republicans from New Hampshire with a portion of them supporting Powell describing themselves as Moderate or Liberal; and with a margin of error of 6 percentage points.
> 
> Now while 300 respondents out of a pool of some 260,000 Republicans is a reasonable sample, the margin of error you get when extrapolating that 300 in a country of some 128 million Republicans is bigger than your IQ.
> 
> Even funnier, as you're claiming a poll taken many months before an election is an accurate predictor, that means the latest polls which show Biden winning in November spells certain doom for Impeached Trump.
Click to expand...




1. Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed.

2. I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim.


3. Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more.  

4 Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position.


5. As a 96 supporter of Patrick Buchanan, I can speak that, supporting Buchanan as the BEST choice, in our opinions, did not mean that we OPPOSED Powell, or thought he was a BAD choice. I can certainly speak for us and tell you that we would have been far happy with a President Powell than another 4 years of that asshole Bill Fucking Clinton.

6. Would you like to take a look at other republican candidates now?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party --


That's clearly the one when you check the actual provided source. I have yet to understand why people still reflexively bash Wikipedia. It's a terrific resource. The purpose of that "hypothetical" poll there, was to see if America, yes, not simply Republicans, might be ready yet for an actual black President. They discovered that on that particular day, under those particular (odd) circumstances, yes, America appeared ready for an Obama.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.


Yeah? Bullshit.


> On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.


As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!
Click to expand...



And the voters said, they would have supported Powell. 

And the majority of that support, was from Republicans, 


thus refuting the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party --
> 
> 
> 
> That's clearly the one when you check the actual provided source. I have yet to understand why people still reflexively bash Wikipedia. It's a terrific resource. The purpose of that "hypothetical" poll there, was to see if America, yes, not simply Republicans, might be ready yet for an actual black President. They discovered that on that particular day, under those particular (odd) circumstances, yes, America appeared ready for an Obama.
Click to expand...



Powell was not an "obama".  I'm not sure why you said that. I was ready to vote for Powell if he had run and won the republican primaries, obama? no freaking way.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,


Link?


Correll said:


> Powell was not an "obama". I'm not sure why you said that


Black? Not just hypothetical?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,
> 
> 
> 
> Link?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Powell was not an "obama". I'm not sure why you said that
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black? Not just hypothetical?
Click to expand...



Both black. Powell was indeed, unfortunately a hypothetical. But beyond that, there were a lot more differences, like a lifetime of military service, and actually being in charge of shit, and NOT being a member of a racist anti-American political ideology for twenty years.


----------



## Grumblenuts

LOL


> Powell is well known for his willingness to support liberal or centrist causes. He is pro-choice regarding abortion, and in favor of "reasonable" gun control.
> _{...snip...}_
> supports affirmative action
> _{...snip...}_
> referred to neoconservatives within the Bush administration as "fucking crazies."


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Powell is well known for his willingness to support liberal or centrist causes. He is pro-choice regarding abortion, and in favor of "reasonable" gun control.
> _{...snip...}_
> supports affirmative action
> _{...snip...}_
> referred to neoconservatives within the Bush administration as "fucking crazies."
Click to expand...




Yes. I recall discussing his moderate political views with republican friends of mine that liked him. His support on the Right was based on his past military service and his support among the moderate and liberal factions of the Party were more based on his actual positions.

He thus was able to do the trick that all strong candidates of Big Tent parties have to be able to pull off, ie appealing to the diverse factions that make up the Party.


But regardless, the point is, he was able to do that, and his race was not a problem for the vast majority of republican voters, nor for the Reagan Democrats, as indicated by the various polls.


This disproves the claim that the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism. 


Would you like to look at another black republican candidate now? For FURTHER proof.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Sure,
Obama:
support liberal or centrist causes? √
pro-choice regarding abortion? √
in favor of "reasonable" gun control? √
supports affirmative action? √


----------



## Mr Natural

Since the precedence for electing game hosts has been established, I say Steve Harvey.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Sure,
> Obama:
> support liberal or centrist causes? √
> pro-choice regarding abortion? √
> in favor of "reasonable" gun control? √
> supports affirmative action? √




This thread is about republicans.  Specifically the lack of black republican presidents. 

I'm not sure why you are bringing up Obama. You seem confused. 


We've established that republicans were happy to support Colin Powell, thus disproving the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican candidates is republican racism.


WOuld you like to look at other black republican candidates now, to see if any of them also got support of republican voters? As further proof that republicans are fine with the idea?


----------



## Correll

Mr Clean said:


> Since the precedence for electing game hosts has been established, I say Steve Harvey.




If he sets forth a platform, I will give him a listen. If it is good enough, I will support him.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Powell was not an "obama". I'm not sure why you said that.


You seem confused. Obama's record (like Bill C's) was Republican viewed from historical standards. GWBush was just "fucking crazy" as is Trump.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Powell was not an "obama". I'm not sure why you said that.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem confused. Obama's record was Republican viewed from historical standards. GWBush was "fucking crazy" as is Trump.
Click to expand...



If you want to discuss abortion, gun control, or affirmative action, go start a thread on them. This thread is about the lack of republican black presidents. 


The claim has been made, that the reason is republican racism.


I have shown that to be false, with documentation, that the republican voters were happy to support Colin Powell in 1996.


I have asked you if you want to discuss another example, of black republican presidential candidates and if they got the support of republican voters.


That is the topic. Do you wish to discuss the topic?


----------



## Grumblenuts

You've shown? This is your topic to define and police now?


----------



## Grumblenuts

I vote


> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*


That face. Looks like a real winner!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> You've shown? This is your topic to define and police now?



The topic is black republican presidents. YOu are talking about Obama and Trump. I've asked you if you want to talk about other black republican presidential candidates.


Oh, I get it. You know that I did refute the claim about republican racism.


You are here to derail the thread, to try to bury that. 


Sorry, I am still sleepy. Took me a second.


I am not a moderator. I am the guy that refuted the thread claim. 


Would you like to discuss it again, with a second example?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> I vote
> 
> 
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That face. Looks like a real winner!
Click to expand...



The face looks fine. THe tats? NOt so much. I doubt he is runing any time soon. What is your point?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I am the guy that refuted the thread claim.


In your dreams, no doubt.


Correll said:


> I doubt he is runing any time soon. What is your point?


Try reading the OP?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am the guy that refuted the thread claim.
> 
> 
> 
> In your dreams, no doubt.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt he is runing any time soon. What is your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading the OP?
Click to expand...




1. The numbers are clear enough, that you want to change the subject to hide the point. SO, yes, refuted.

2. I read the op. You posted a pic of some young guy. THat is not a point.

3. Do you want to discuss the thread topic with another example?


----------



## Grumblenuts

1. I voted one of the choices offered in the OP, Mr. Oblivious.
2. You've refuted nothing. Faun destroyed your feeble effort long before I did.
3. Responding with lists like this is juvenile.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> 1. I voted one of the choices offered in the OP, Mr. Oblivious.
> 2. You've refuted nothing.
> 3. Responding with lists like this is juvenile.





1. Oh, got it. Well this has been going on quite a while. The OP was fairly dishonest. He was pretending to ask a question, but really, he dismissed anything and everything that was not just race baiting.

2. ANd yes, I've refuted it. That is why you are here trying to confuse the issue.

3. Nope. It helps keep points and counter points clear. I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.


4. Would you like to discuss the topic with another example of a black presidential candidate?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.


O'Reilly?


Correll said:


> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans


Link?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...



You want a link that it was the republcians and blue dog dems voting for the republican? 

REally? Do you think it was the lib democrats who voted for Powell? 

I mean, are you serious? Or just playing defense?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want a link that it was the republcians and blue dog dems voting for the republican?
> 
> REally? Do you think it was the lib democrats who voted for Powell?
> 
> I mean, are you serious? Or just playing defense?
Click to expand...

Try not to distract yourself, Mr. Clarity. Mr.


Correll said:


> you want to change the subject to hide the point


Focus:


Correll said:


> the majority of that support, was from Republicans


Link?


----------



## Grumblenuts

_Crickets..._


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> You've posted no polls showing how many Republicans would have voted for Powell.
> 
> Your lies never stop.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want a link that it was the republcians and blue dog dems voting for the republican?
> 
> REally? Do you think it was the lib democrats who voted for Powell?
> 
> I mean, are you serious? Or just playing defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try not to distract yourself, Mr. Clarity. Mr.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> you want to change the subject to hide the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...



96 was before everything was online, so finding it online can be a little tricky.

I did find this, reference to a republican poll, 1996.










						Why Powell Must Make The Race
					

WHO APPOINTED ME THE SAVIOR OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?" Gen. Colin Powell asked with some irritation in a private conversation at his office last week. My answer is, the American people, beginning with the voters in New Hampshire.




					www.newsweek.com
				






"In the first-in-the-nation primary, however, Republicans there gave none of the GOP contenders even 30 percent, while 37 percent told exit pollsters they would have voted for Powell. As Powell never set foot in New Hampshire, nor spent a nickel there, that was the important fact of the primary. "

Very strong support among republican voters. More support than any of the actual declared candidates.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.


> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.


Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.

On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.



As I pointed out, this is from Pre internet days. And I have posted some strong evidence. NH, is not all of the country. But is also not isolated from the country either. 

Maybe it is YOUR turn to post something from the period to support YOUR position.


What exactly is your position?


Is it your argument that the exit polls was mostly white lib dems and black dems supporting Powell (vs clinton)?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I have posted some strong evidence. NH, is not


Correct. Admit it. You've got nothing.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
Click to expand...




As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96

There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.









						Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
					

Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support




					www.cbsnews.com
				




"Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "

"Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "

Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have posted some strong evidence. NH, is not
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. Admit it. You've got nothing.
Click to expand...



Strong evidence is not nothing. YOU'VE posted nothing to support your position.


Hell, you cut the portion of my post, where I asked you to clarify your posiiton.

Not the action of someone being honest and serious.


----------



## Grumblenuts

My position is that we're all fucked.. until we get together and fight back. Until money no longer speaks for us instead of ourselves. Until the owner class is no more.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> My position is that we're all fucked.. until we get together and fight back. Until money no longer speaks for us instead of ourselves. Until the owner class is no more.




That's nice.

Part of fighting back would be rejecting their prepacked division.


Why are you pretending that the gop would not have elected Powell or Cain, if they had won the primaries?


How does that fight back against The Man?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
Click to expand...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Oh, I'm intolerant of other's opinions now? So desperate you're now making this about some shit you've dreamt up about me.


> Here is a plausible reason that they become Republicans, they have a choice and their ideal align more closely to the Republican party than to the Democratic party.


Here's more. Racism. Xenophobia. Intolerance. Fear.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Oh, I'm intolerant of other's opinions now? So desperate you're now making this about some shit you've dreamt up about me.
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a plausible reason that they become Republicans, they have a choice and their ideal align more closely to the Republican party than to the Democratic party.
> 
> 
> 
> Here's more. Racism. Xenophobia. Intolerance. Fear.
Click to expand...



That's my signature line. It's been that for years. It is a reference to why some voters might vote republican. It is not personally directed at you.

Are you smoking pot, right now?


You are acting crazy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Sorry for responding to your sig line.. which just happens to be topical.. and batshit crazy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

What you Tea Party nuts have never grasped is that you're just willing tools. Putty in the hands of the corporate elite who brought us the first Hollywood President, Reagan, to bash government as though no government was ever an option. Meanwhile, that same corporate elite buys all the government they possibly can, for fun and profit, at our expense. All now culminating in Trump. A two bit crook openly destroying government and us all, as best he can manage, thanks to nincompoops like you.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Why are you pretending that the gop would not have elected Powell or Cain, if they had won the primaries?


Very funny. That's like saying the Earth would be flat were it not for being round. The primaries exist to narrow the field down to one candidate who will run against the selection from the other half of the corporate duopoly. If the GOP really wanted a Powell or a Cain it would selected a Powell or a Cain as its presidential candidate through its primary process.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> What you Tea Party nuts have never grasped is that you're just willing tools. Putty in the hands of the corporate elite who brought us the first Hollywood President, Reagan, to bash government as though no government was ever an option. Meanwhile, that same corporate elite buys all the government they possibly can, for fun and profit, at our expense. All now culminating in Trump. A two bit crook openly destroying government and us all, as best he can manage, thanks to nincompoops like you.




Dude. The Big Money is AGAINST Trump. They were on Hillary's side in the last election.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you Tea Party nuts have never grasped is that you're just willing tools. Putty in the hands of the corporate elite who brought us the first Hollywood President, Reagan, to bash government as though no government was ever an option. Meanwhile, that same corporate elite buys all the government they possibly can, for fun and profit, at our expense. All now culminating in Trump. A two bit crook openly destroying government and us all, as best he can manage, thanks to nincompoops like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. The Big Money is AGAINST Trump. They were on Hillary's side in the last election.
Click to expand...

It was on both sides as always, ergo "Corporate Duopoly" - THINK about it, numbnuts.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you pretending that the gop would not have elected Powell or Cain, if they had won the primaries?
> 
> 
> 
> Very funny. That's like saying the Earth would be flat were it not for being round. The primaries exist to narrow the field down to one candidate who will run against the selection from the other half of the corporate duopoly. If the GOP really wanted a Powell or a Cain it would selected a Powell or a Cain as its presidential candidate through its primary process.
Click to expand...



No, it is not like saying that. 


Your position, seems to be that "racism" is the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents.

Pointing out that polls show that the gop voters would have happily supported various black republicans for the office, refutes that claim.



YOur denial of that makes no sense.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you Tea Party nuts have never grasped is that you're just willing tools. Putty in the hands of the corporate elite who brought us the first Hollywood President, Reagan, to bash government as though no government was ever an option. Meanwhile, that same corporate elite buys all the government they possibly can, for fun and profit, at our expense. All now culminating in Trump. A two bit crook openly destroying government and us all, as best he can manage, thanks to nincompoops like you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. The Big Money is AGAINST Trump. They were on Hillary's side in the last election.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was on both sides as always, ergo "Corporate Duopoly" - THINK about it, numbnuts.
Click to expand...


Nope. The big money wanted Hillary on your side, and Jeb Bush on our side. 

The peasants on both sides rose up and fought against the Big Money choices. 


I'm proud that on our side, the pitchfork and torch bearing mob won, and the elite lost. 

It is not to your credit, that Bernie lost on your side, and then got back into line like a good soldier.


THe panic, the hysteria that Big Media and Big Money has been ginning up since the election, that is them controlling and co-opting you.


Trump? He is an old man. He will be gone, one way or another, is a few years. HIs policies are not radical. The hysteria is not called for.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Your position, seems to be that "racism" is the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents.


It remains the main reason, logically, unless and until you can demonstrate otherwise.


Correll said:


> Pointing out that polls show that the gop voters would have happily supported various black republicans for the office, refutes that claim.


Only hypothetically. In reality, they've come up short.


Correll said:


> The big money wanted Hillary on your side, and Jeb Bush on our side.


Granted. Initially. Then they chose Trump. At least you admit to the "big money" being on both sides.


Correll said:


> I'm proud that on our side, the pitchfork and torch bearing mob won, and the elite lost.


Well congrats on electing our first billionaire President, you self-deluded moron.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your position, seems to be that "racism" is the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> It remains the main reason, logically, unless and until you can demonstrate otherwise.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pointing out that polls show that the gop voters would have happily supported various black republicans for the office, refutes that claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only hypothetically. In reality, they've come up short.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The big money wanted Hillary on your side, and Jeb Bush on our side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Granted. Initially. Then they chose Trump. At least you admit to the "big money" being on both sides.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm proud that on our side, the pitchfork and torch bearing mob won, and the elite lost.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well congrats on electing our first billionaire President, you self-deluded moron.
Click to expand...




1. Why are you emotionally wedded the idea of republican racism, to the point of dismissing all data to the contrary?

2. Nope. THe big money was against Trump and thought they had a win in hand, right up until election night when the people handed them a nice big old surprise defeat.

3. It is ironic that the person that saw the under served voting bloc of working poor whites, was a billionaire. That reflects very poorly on the stupidity of our Political Class. Trump saw a path to something he wanted and he took advantage. The voters saw someone who was at least saying he would try to represent their interests. Neither of them did anything wrong. 


4. Is that all it is for you? A hatred of the rich? YOu can't accept TRump as a legit choice because he is of the wrong class?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yes, you pose lots of (stupid, loaded) questions while continuing to provide zero logic or evidence to back your wild assertions and accusations. In short, you remain a complete waste of time.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, you pose lots of (stupid, loaded) questions while continuing to provide zero logic or evidence to back your wild assertions and accusations. In short, you remain a complete waste of time.




It is not a stupid question. Several black republicans have been contenders. There are reasons why each of them never made it, but it has not been "racism" for many years. And you are just dismissing all information that you don't like. 


So, my question is completely reasonable. Why are you emotionally invested in the idea of "republican racism"?


What would happen if you admitted that Colin Powell would likely have been elected by (primarily) republican voters if he had ran?


Why do you feel a need to push back against that question?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> THe big money was against Trump and thought they had a win in hand, right up until election night


Sure, sure. Read and weep:








						Top Donors to the Trump 2020 Campaign
					

Listing the mega-backers to former President Trump's reelection campaign.




					www.investopedia.com
				











						Are You Inadvertently Supporting Trump’s Re-Election?
					

Many U.S. companies that operate or sell their products in Canada either directly or indirectly support President Donald Trump.




					www.chatelaine.com
				











						How Trump's business empire is cashing in on the 2020 campaign
					

Watchdogs and public records reveal how Trump properties have raked in millions from Pacs and Republican figures




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> THe big money was against Trump and thought they had a win in hand, right up until election night
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, sure. Read and weep:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top Donors to the Trump 2020 Campaign
> 
> 
> Listing the mega-backers to former President Trump's reelection campaign.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.investopedia.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are You Inadvertently Supporting Trump’s Re-Election?
> 
> 
> Many U.S. companies that operate or sell their products in Canada either directly or indirectly support President Donald Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.chatelaine.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How Trump's business empire is cashing in on the 2020 campaign
> 
> 
> Watchdogs and public records reveal how Trump properties have raked in millions from Pacs and Republican figures
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theguardian.com
Click to expand...












						Trump Campaign Has Just $1.3M Cash on Hand, Filings Show
					

Federal Election Commission filings show that the Donald Trump campaign is staggeringly low on cash — and struggling at fundraising.




					www.nbcnews.com
				





"Hillary Clinton is crushing Donald Trump on the fundraising front, electoral filings show, casting doubt on the Republican's claims that money is "pouring in" for his campaign.

Trump raised just over $3 million in May — the month he secured enough delegates to win the Republican nomination — while Clinton raked in more than $26 million, according to the latest filings from the Federal Election Commission.

Those numbers — weak for a Congressional campaign, let alone a run at the White House — have put Trump and the Republican Party at an extraordinary financial disadvantage heading into the general election."


----------



## Grumblenuts

And your supposed point, Mr. Lame Ass Rebuttal?


> At the outset of Donald Trump’s bid for the White House, he blasted super PACs on Twitter as “scams” and “unfair” and disavowed such outside help.
> 
> Then he changed his tune. By the end of his 2016 campaign, more than a hundred super PACs and similar groups had spent more than $72 million on his behalf, helping him defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.


Wake up, white boy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

2016 Totals Raised:
Hillary: $769,879,088 
The Donald: $468,846,867

Oh my, what "an extraordinary financial disadvantage"!


----------



## Grumblenuts

2020 Totals Raised so far:
Joe Biden: $98,266,045
Sanders: $181,211,792 
Trump: $268,895,296

2012 Herman Cain: $16,227,060 


> Super PACs:
> 9-9-9 FUND
> Beat Obama PAC
> Cain Connections PAC


----------



## Grumblenuts

> After running an unconventional and underfunded campaign in 2016 but receiving free media attention valued at about $5 billion, Trump’s reelection campaign looks to be flush with cash. Having declared his 2020 bid the day he took office, Trump has drawn unprecedented fundraising hauls, attracting both large and small donors.


----------



## Grumblenuts

If Republicans really wanted a black candidate in 2012 they sure had a funny way of showing it:


> *Independent Expenditures*
> *Candidates Opposed/Supported by Outside Groups and Party Committees*
> 
> CandidateEntire Cycle TotalLast Week TotalLast 24 Hours TotalSupportedOpposedObama, Barack (D)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $393,258,399$55,444,144$1,554,682$49,816,652$333,851,814Romney, Mitt (R)$186,408,055$18,743,983$2,693,919$90,586,403$95,275,499Gingrich, Newt (R)$32,439,757$0$0$13,597,555$18,842,202Santorum, Rick (R)$28,593,154$0$0$7,646,898$20,946,256Paul, Ron (R)$4,247,914$0$0$4,113,744$134,170Perry, Rick (R)$4,185,027$0$0$4,162,689$22,338Huntsman, Jon (R)$2,804,895$0$0$2,804,609$286Johnson, Gary (L)$555,204$0$0$555,069$135Cain, Herman (R)$309,655$0$0$307,802$1,853Stein, Jill (3)$4,507$0$0$4,372$135Roemer, Buddy (I)$46$0$0$46$0*Total**$652,806,613**$74,188,127**$4,248,601**$173,595,839**$469,074,688*


----------



## Grumblenuts

Behind the Candidates: Campaign Committees and Outside Groups
					

OpenSecrets.org coverage of the 2016 Presidential race and candidates




					www.opensecrets.org
				











						2020 Presidential Race
					

As we inch closer to the 2020 election, we begin to see groups working on behalf of each of the most serious White House hopefuls – leadership PACs, super PACs, 501(c)(4) dark money outlets and more – crop up and start spending in support of their favored candidates.




					www.opensecrets.org


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> And your supposed point, Mr. Lame Ass Rebuttal?
> 
> 
> 
> At the outset of Donald Trump’s bid for the White House, he blasted super PACs on Twitter as “scams” and “unfair” and disavowed such outside help.
> 
> Then he changed his tune. By the end of his 2016 campaign, more than a hundred super PACs and similar groups had spent more than $72 million on his behalf, helping him defeat Democrat Hillary Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> Wake up, white boy.
Click to expand...



Dude. You want a candidate who gets NO money from ANYONE? Cause that is not going to be any Dem candidate. Ever. 

I said that the big money wanted Hillary. And they did. Hillary crushed Trump on raising money and spending.

EVERY TIME You listen to some talking head talking shit on Trump, you are being played by the big money you supposed oppose.


You vote for Biden, you think the BIg Money have any problem working with Biden? He's been in the system for ever.


Why do you NEED to believe in the republican being the bad guys, to the point of dismissing all data that you doesn't fit that narrative?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> 2016 Totals Raised:
> Hillary: $769,879,088
> The Donald: $468,846,867
> 
> Oh my, what "an extraordinary financial disadvantage"!




Hillary had almost DOUBLE what Trump had. That is a huge advantage. If the numbers were reversed you would have no problem seeing that as a huge advantage. The big money wanted Hillary. 

Sure they threw some to the other guy to cover their bets, like they always do. But that was the back up plan they did not want to have to go to.


YOu are holding to this vision of republicans as supervillains, like a religious fanatic.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> 2020 Totals Raised so far:
> Joe Biden: $98,266,045
> Sanders: $181,211,792
> Trump: $268,895,296
> 
> 2012 Herman Cain: $16,227,060
> 
> 
> 
> Super PACs:
> 9-9-9 FUND
> Beat Obama PAC
> Cain Connections PAC
Click to expand...



Yeah, big money thinks Trump is going to win. They never thought that Cain would win. Cain was brought down fairly early on.

Funny, you Trump has more money this time around and you see it as evidence of something. But looking back, Hillary had more than Trump and that meant nothing?

They have brainwashed you. You are in the grip of mass hysteria.


YOU are the one that needs to wake up.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> If Republicans really wanted a black candidate in 2012 they sure had a funny way of showing it:
> 
> 
> 
> *Independent Expenditures*
> *Candidates Opposed/Supported by Outside Groups and Party Committees*
> 
> CandidateEntire Cycle TotalLast Week TotalLast 24 Hours TotalSupportedOpposedObama, Barack (D)
> 
> 
> 
> $393,258,399$55,444,144$1,554,682$49,816,652$333,851,814Romney, Mitt (R)$186,408,055$18,743,983$2,693,919$90,586,403$95,275,499Gingrich, Newt (R)$32,439,757$0$0$13,597,555$18,842,202Santorum, Rick (R)$28,593,154$0$0$7,646,898$20,946,256Paul, Ron (R)$4,247,914$0$0$4,113,744$134,170Perry, Rick (R)$4,185,027$0$0$4,162,689$22,338Huntsman, Jon (R)$2,804,895$0$0$2,804,609$286Johnson, Gary (L)$555,204$0$0$555,069$135Cain, Herman (R)$309,655$0$0$307,802$1,853Stein, Jill (3)$4,507$0$0$4,372$135Roemer, Buddy (I)$46$0$0$46$0*Total**$652,806,613**$74,188,127**$4,248,601**$173,595,839**$469,074,688*
Click to expand...




"Republicans" did not want a "black candidate in 2012. I never said anything like that, and I never would.


Cain had the highest level of support from REPUBLICAN VOTERS, for a number of reasons. I liked his style and his contempt for the media. I heard a lot of people talking about his tax plan. Other people, I don't recall discussing it with a lot of people.


Republican voters don't pick their candidates based on Identity politics. 


But I like how suddenly, you see money as a sign of support. 


ANd I want to say again. I am disgusted with Cain's base, the religious right, for being stupid enough to give any credibility to the stupid media accusations.


Any republican, in the modern era, that doesn't know that the media is our enemy, is a fool.


----------



## Grumblenuts

You're a veritable fountain of stupid.


Correll said:


> Any republican, in the modern era, that doesn't know that the media is our enemy, is a fool.


"free media attention valued at about $5 billion" - That's what made up the difference, dummy.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> You're a veritable fountain of stupid.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any republican, in the modern era, that doesn't know that the media is our enemy, is a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> "free media attention valued at about $5 billion" - That's what made up the difference, dummy.
Click to expand...



The vast majority of that coverage was NEGATIVE.

And to the extent that Trump played them, that was the media being played, not on his side, giving him something because they liked him.


I do take back my previous statement though.

ANYONE, in the modern era, that doesn't know the media is the enemy of the Republican Party, is a fool.



Trump played them, getting his message out, to overcome the fact that the big money was behind Hillary.


Why are you so insistent on holding on to ideas, that are demonstrably false?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a veritable fountain of stupid.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any republican, in the modern era, that doesn't know that the media is our enemy, is a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> "free media attention valued at about $5 billion" - That's what made up the difference, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of that coverage was NEGATIVE.
> 
> And to the extent that Trump played them, that was the media being played, not on his side, giving him something because they liked him.
> 
> 
> I do take back my previous statement though.
> 
> ANYONE, in the modern era, that doesn't know the media is the enemy of the Republican Party, is a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump played them, getting his message out, to overcome the fact that the big money was behind Hillary.
> 
> 
> Why are you so insistent on holding on to ideas, that are demonstrably false?
Click to expand...

Who owns "the media", Genius?  Could it be Satan? Or, just perhaps, "the big money"? Think, McFly!


----------



## IM2

Well Correll, whatcha gonna do when grumblenuts runs wild on you?

He's kicking your ass. So what's your excuse going to be for a man like grumble. He's just as white as you, but somehow he doesn't seem to see the anti white racism that's keeping you down. So is he one of those self loathing whites who feels they must kiss black ass due to white guilt? I don't think he is. I think he a strong white man who has endured, has seen the wrongs done and refuses to allow them to continue. I am sure grumble and I could have a real substantive talk about the conditions in the black community, disagree if need be, and I would not  get back the bout of stump stupid coming from him that I get from whites like you here.

You see punk, while you spend time whining about me blaming all whites because I refuse to accept your faggot ass racism, I understand that there are millions of grumblenuts in America who want to ensure everyone gets an equal chance to fail or succeed, while you want everything given to you because you believe that your skin color entitles you to it.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a veritable fountain of stupid.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any republican, in the modern era, that doesn't know that the media is our enemy, is a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> "free media attention valued at about $5 billion" - That's what made up the difference, dummy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The vast majority of that coverage was NEGATIVE.
> 
> And to the extent that Trump played them, that was the media being played, not on his side, giving him something because they liked him.
> 
> 
> I do take back my previous statement though.
> 
> ANYONE, in the modern era, that doesn't know the media is the enemy of the Republican Party, is a fool.
> 
> 
> 
> Trump played them, getting his message out, to overcome the fact that the big money was behind Hillary.
> 
> 
> Why are you so insistent on holding on to ideas, that are demonstrably false?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who owns "the media", Genius?  Could it be Satan? Or, just perhaps, "the big money"? Think, McFly!
Click to expand...



Doesn't change what happened. THe media was against Trump, and he used that as much as he could to use them to get his message out.


Your belief that big money is controlling that, is more of your hysteria.


What would it change for you, if you had to admit that the GOP was not racist?


Would it mean you have to start supporting lower taxes? Or vote for Trump?


Is "racism" the only reason or excuse you have to vote against Trump?


----------



## Grumblenuts

> Over time, both the number of media outlets and concentration of ownership have increased, translating to fewer companies owning more media outlets.[3] In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; in 2012, 90% was controlled by just 6 companies.


Which are mainly owned by Blacks? Which thrive mainly upon advertising from corporations owned / run by who? "The Big Money"? How is Trump somehow not part of "The Big Money"? "The Media"?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Over time, both the number of media outlets and concentration of ownership have increased, translating to fewer companies owning more media outlets.[3] In 1983, 90% of US media was controlled by 50 companies; in 2012, 90% was controlled by just 6 companies.
> 
> 
> 
> Which are mainly owned by Blacks? Which thrive mainly upon advertising from corporations owned / run by who? "The Big Money"? How is Trump somehow not part of "The Big Money"? "The Media"?
Click to expand...



1.  I don't care about the skin color of the people owning big media. Do you?

2.  Advertisers seem to be a pretty large and diffuse group, more like an easily stampedable mob, than a controlling conspiracy.

3. Because Trump wants to advance his personal interests, not The Big Money's. He embraced the interests of working class whites to get their support, because it was what he had to do to win. That put him at odds with Big Money that has grown to like Globalization.

4. Media behavior seems driven more by the political biases of the media types, than the behind the scene money guys.


----------



## Grumblenuts

1.
2.
3.
4.
There you go, listing starboard again..

1. Self-distraction. How you or I personally feel about that is not the topic.
2. Self-distraction. How you or I personally feel about that is not the topic.
3. Self-delusion and not the topic.
4. Utter nonsense and not the topic.

The topic deals with racism not by asking whether Republicans are racist. No, the question is, in general, are the Republicans more racist than the Democrats?  One thing indicating "Yes" is not yet even nominating a black person in a Presidential primary where the Democrats have already elected one twice. Try to focus.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> 1.
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> There you go, listing starboard again..
> 
> 1. Self-distraction. How you or I personally feel about that is not the topic.
> 2. Self-distraction. How you or I personally feel about that is not the topic.
> 3. Self-delusion and not the topic.
> 4. Utter nonsense and not the topic.
> 
> The topic deals with racism not by asking whether Republicans are racist. No, the question is, in general, are the Republicans more racist than the Democrats?  One thing indicating "Yes" is not yet even nominating a black person in a Presidential primary where the Democrats have already elected one twice. Try to focus.




Except that as I have shown, the republicans were willing to elect a black republican BEFORE the dems elected Obama, but unfortunately Colin Powell, did not want the job.


This nation is not nearly as racist as you were led to believe. 


Why are you resisting this good news? Why do you want to keep pretending that your political enemies are evul supervillains?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Why do you just keep denying the obvious and tossing out shit to argue with yourself about? Evidently you can't deal with logic and facts.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> as I have shown, the republicans were willing to elect a black republican


No, you haven't, and they weren't.. as you've been shown.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Why do you just keep denying the obvious and tossing out shit to argue with yourself about? Evidently you can't deal with logic and facts.




Because my observations of myself, my peers, stated republican policies and actions, ect.  do not match the claims of republican racism, that their enemies keep pushing.


AND, because I see, constantly, the use of such accusations to shut down reasonable discussion of reasonable policies and ideas, if not actually destroying good people for no reason.


I repeat my question to you, why are YOU so invested in this vision of the GOP as evul racists villains?


Ask yourself, why should you not be happy and tempted by such good news? Why is accepting this version of events, not a TEMPTATION to you?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> as I have shown, the republicans were willing to elect a black republican
> 
> 
> 
> No, you haven't, and they weren't.. as you've been shown.
Click to expand...


THe polls, what my friends were saying at the, my own willingness to support him at the time, all tell me that we totally were.

The only problem, was that he did not want the hassle. And who can blame him for that?


And that is not a bad thing. THe guy had done enough for his country. He had no obligation to run.


But judging republicans as "Racist" because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job, is not reasonable or fair.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you just keep denying the obvious and tossing out shit to argue with yourself about? Evidently you can't deal with logic and facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because
Click to expand...

Fine admission.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> But judging republicans as "Racist" because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job, is not reasonable or fair.


Yes, logic dictates that would not be the reason. Apparently you just can't control yourself.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you just keep denying the obvious and tossing out shit to argue with yourself about? Evidently you can't deal with logic and facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine admission.
Click to expand...



Dude, I'm going to assume that was meant as a funny quick little jab.  And LOL!!! It was cute and clever as that.


And now, please go back and make your real response.

I've shown you the respect of taking your points and words seriously and honestly and responding in kind. Please return the favor.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But judging republicans as "Racist" because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job, is not reasonable or fair.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, logic dictates that would not be the reason. Apparently you just can't control yourself.
Click to expand...



Powell refused to run. People wanted him to run.  His stated reason was a "lack of passion for politics".

WHat logic are you referring to?

The support for his run, and for him was well known at the time, and I have documented it in this thread.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I've shown you the respect of taking your points and words seriously and honestly and responding in kind.


Then you have no idea what that means.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown you the respect of taking your points and words seriously and honestly and responding in kind.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have no idea what that means.
Click to expand...



Dude. WHY ARE YOU HOLDING ON TO THIS BELIEF LIKE YOU ARE?

What about it, is so important to you?

Why are you so invested in it, that you stonewall so sadly?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> WHat logic are you referring to?


Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat logic are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.
Click to expand...


IF the republicans were as racist as you claim, they would not have supported a potential Powell run for the office.

But they did.

Dismissing that, because POwell choose not to run, is not reasonable or fair. Or accurarte.


The support was real. The Republican voters were willing to support a black guy to be President.


Why are you so invested in this belief in republicans being "racist"?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat logic are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the republicans were as racist as you claim, they would not have supported a potential Powell run for the office.
> 
> But they did.
> 
> Dismissing that, because POwell choose not to run, is not reasonable or fair. Or accurarte.
> 
> 
> The support was real. The Republican voters were willing to support a black guy to be President.
> 
> 
> Why are you so invested in this belief in republicans being "racist"?
Click to expand...

That's a lovely story you keep telling yourself. Now consider this one. The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat logic are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the republicans were as racist as you claim, they would not have supported a potential Powell run for the office.
> 
> But they did.
> 
> Dismissing that, because POwell choose not to run, is not reasonable or fair. Or accurarte.
> 
> 
> The support was real. The Republican voters were willing to support a black guy to be President.
> 
> 
> Why are you so invested in this belief in republicans being "racist"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lovely story you keep telling yourself. Now consider this one. The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?
Click to expand...



It is a lovely story. Much nicer than the dystopian world you live in. So, why are you so intent on holding on to your story?

And really, it is not a lovely story either. It is a little sad. It would have been amusing if the republicans had managed to snake that milestone away from the dems, ie the First Black President, and see them try to hang on to their fantasy after that. But no. We got DOle instead. and just lost.


So, two stories. ONe a dystopian hell world, and another, a slightly sad and boring one.


Is that it? Is your story just more exciting for you? To be a brave social justice warrior fighting the good fight against evul racists, even if on some level you know it is all pretend?



Instead of just some guy who disagrees with some other people over boring politics? You get to have white hot self righteous rage coursing though your veins?!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Other than not nominating a Presidential candidate yet, why do I think Republicans are, in general, more racist than Democrats? Here's a good start:


> White Democrats (64%) are far more likely than white Republicans (15%) to say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving black people equal rights with whites. About half of Republicans say it’s been about right, while a sizable minority (31%) says the country has gone too far in this regard.
> 
> Eight-in-ten white Democrats – vs. 40% of white Republicans – say the legacy of slavery continues to have an impact on black people’s position in American society today. And when it comes to views about racial discrimination, 78% of white Democrats say the bigger problem is people not seeing it where it really does exist, while a similar share of white Republicans say people seeing racial discrimination where it really does not exist is the bigger problem.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat logic are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the republicans were as racist as you claim, they would not have supported a potential Powell run for the office.
> 
> But they did.
> 
> Dismissing that, because POwell choose not to run, is not reasonable or fair. Or accurarte.
> 
> 
> The support was real. The Republican voters were willing to support a black guy to be President.
> 
> 
> Why are you so invested in this belief in republicans being "racist"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lovely story you keep telling yourself. Now consider this one. The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a lovely story. Much nicer than the dystopian world you live in. So, why are you so intent on holding on to your story?
> 
> And really, it is not a lovely story either. It is a little sad. It would have been amusing if the republicans had managed to snake that milestone away from the dems, ie the First Black President, and see them try to hang on to their fantasy after that. But no. We got DOle instead. and just lost.
> 
> 
> So, two stories. ONe a dystopian hell world, and another, a slightly sad and boring one.
> 
> 
> Is that it? Is your story just more exciting for you? To be a brave social justice warrior fighting the good fight against evul racists, even if on some level you know it is all pretend?
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just some guy who disagrees with some other people over boring politics? You get to have white hot self righteous rage coursing though your veins?!
Click to expand...

So by completely failing to address the questions I asked you.. you are showing me respect and taking my words seriously?


----------



## Grumblenuts

> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.


Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Other than not nominating a Presidential candidate yet, why do I think Republicans are, in general, more racist than Democrats? Here's a good start:
> 
> 
> 
> White Democrats (64%) are far more likely than white Republicans (15%) to say the country hasn’t gone far enough when it comes to giving black people equal rights with whites. About half of Republicans say it’s been about right, while a sizable minority (31%) says the country has gone too far in this regard.
> 
> Eight-in-ten white Democrats – vs. 40% of white Republicans – say the legacy of slavery continues to have an impact on black people’s position in American society today. And when it comes to views about racial discrimination, 78% of white Democrats say the bigger problem is people not seeing it where it really does exist, while a similar share of white Republicans say people seeing racial discrimination where it really does not exist is the bigger problem.
Click to expand...




Your inability to be honest about my point, demonstrates your dishonesty on the issue. Lets keep that in mind, moving forward.


And now we see why you need to hold on to your dystopian narrative. 


Because it gives you a pass, to dismiss any idea or policy or action or candidate that you disagree with as "racist" without having to actually explain why.


It is just assumed as a premise in your world. And as your side has dominance in pop culture and the media, you have managed to craft that into the  Conventional Wisdom.


That is why, the possibility that America is far LESS RACIST than you thought, is terrifying to you, instead of being TEMPTING to you.


This gives you a tremendous advantage in policy debate. NOt to mention the power to destroy people, who don't conform.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHat logic are you referring to?
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed it "is not reasonable or fair" to presume Republicans are racist "because the only viable black candidate of the time, didn't want the job". Yet that's your illogic and yours alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> IF the republicans were as racist as you claim, they would not have supported a potential Powell run for the office.
> 
> But they did.
> 
> Dismissing that, because POwell choose not to run, is not reasonable or fair. Or accurarte.
> 
> 
> The support was real. The Republican voters were willing to support a black guy to be President.
> 
> 
> Why are you so invested in this belief in republicans being "racist"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a lovely story you keep telling yourself. Now consider this one. The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is a lovely story. Much nicer than the dystopian world you live in. So, why are you so intent on holding on to your story?
> 
> And really, it is not a lovely story either. It is a little sad. It would have been amusing if the republicans had managed to snake that milestone away from the dems, ie the First Black President, and see them try to hang on to their fantasy after that. But no. We got DOle instead. and just lost.
> 
> 
> So, two stories. ONe a dystopian hell world, and another, a slightly sad and boring one.
> 
> 
> Is that it? Is your story just more exciting for you? To be a brave social justice warrior fighting the good fight against evul racists, even if on some level you know it is all pretend?
> 
> 
> 
> Instead of just some guy who disagrees with some other people over boring politics? You get to have white hot self righteous rage coursing though your veins?!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by completely failing to address the questions I asked you.. you are showing me respect and taking my words seriously?
Click to expand...



Well, we've gone over that ground repeatedly. You are just stone walling now. So, I guess I am treating your words with less respect as you keep stonewalling. 


Yes, that is a valid point. I guess I was attempting to be diplomatic, in not calling you on your tactics. 


I note that you are dodging my far more relevant and on topic questions.


So, two stories. ONe a dystopian hell world, and another, a slightly sad and boring one.


Is that it? Is your story just more exciting for you? To be a brave social justice warrior fighting the good fight against evul racists, even if on some level you know it is all pretend?



Instead of just some guy who disagrees with some other people over boring politics? You get to have white hot self righteous rage coursing though your veins?!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
Click to expand...



The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".


Good white dems, blame, according to your excerpt, "blame...racial discrimination, less access to good schools and jobs".

So, your question is do most republicans take black seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared with Democrats.


I think that the biggest obstacle for blacks when it comes to "succeeding" is the breakdown in the family. This is a common and ever increasingly held view among republicans. 


That would be us, blaming a cultural problem in the black community for a lot of problems in the black community. 


There is nothing in that statement that requires or implies a lack of respect. All cultures have problems. This does not mean the we will not treat black individuals or groups, or the population as a whole, without respect or not seriously.


THe dems, basically see the blacks as victims of discrimination and lack of access to jobs and schools. I believe that liberals see being a Victim as as sign of moral superiority, so....


Comparably speaking, I think republicans are do fairly well, dealing with blacks as individuals, while dems tend to put them on a pedestal.  


I got a great example, if you would like to see it?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Good white dems, blame, according to your excerpt, "blame...racial discrimination, less access to good schools and jobs".


You sure that excerpt says "blame"?  I think you may have respectfully made that up in your serious "white hot self righteous rage"!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good white dems, blame, according to your excerpt, "blame...racial discrimination, less access to good schools and jobs".
> 
> 
> 
> You sure that excerpt says "blame"?  I think you may have respectfully made that up in your serious "white hot self righteous rage"!
Click to expand...




Sorry about "blame" misquote.

That being said, I answered your question seriously and honestly.


I answered both for Republicans absolutely and relative to dems. 


Do you think culture of white America has any problems?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.
> 
> 
> Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.
> 
> And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,
> 
> 
> it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.
> 
> You lose again because you're a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.
> 
> Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican  support for POwell in 96.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?
> 
> 
> Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What support??
> 
> Dumbfuck, at what point will you realize the only thing you've shown was a link to a link to exit polls which didn't demonstrate political breakdown, and a poll based on one state taken more than 4 months before the election.
> 
> Even worse for you, Powell's support came from Moderate and Liberal Republicans...
> 
> _New Hampshirites who say they are likely to vote in their state's Republican Presidential primary favor Gen. Colin L. Powell over Senator Bob Dole and the other announced contenders, according to a poll made public today._​​_The survey, conducted by Chris Potholm, who has run a polling operation at Bowdoin College in Maine for two decades, found General Powell drawing *34 percent*, compared with *25 percent* for Mr. Dole, 16 percent for Patrick J. Buchanan and 16 percent undecided. If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent._​​_The poll found that among Republicans describing themselves as *moderates*, General Powell was favored over Mr. Dole by *43 percent to 35 percent*; among liberals, he was favored by *38 percent to 12 percent*._​​_*"The astonishing thing is this is a man who nobody knows is a Republican,"* said Mr. Potholm, a professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin. "For Republican primary voters to embrace somebody to this degree I find truly extraordinary."_​​_The poll, of *300 voters*, was conducted the last week in September. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus six percentage points._​_Other recent polls in New Hampshire -- whose primaries, the first in the nation, are set for Feb. 20 -- have also found General Powell more popular among Republican voters than are the announced candidates._​
> So now we see the poll referenced in the wikipedia article *you linked* is actually just 300 Republicans from New Hampshire with a portion of them supporting Powell describing themselves as Moderate or Liberal; and with a margin of error of 6 percentage points.
> 
> Now while 300 respondents out of a pool of some 260,000 Republicans is a reasonable sample, the margin of error you get when extrapolating that 300 in a country of some 128 million Republicans is bigger than your IQ.
> 
> Even funnier, as you're claiming a poll taken many months before an election is an accurate predictor, that means the latest polls which show Biden winning in November spells certain doom for Impeached Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim.
> 
> 
> 3. Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more.
> 
> 4 Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position.
> 
> 
> 5. As a 96 supporter of Patrick Buchanan, I can speak that, supporting Buchanan as the BEST choice, in our opinions, did not mean that we OPPOSED Powell, or thought he was a BAD choice. I can certainly speak for us and tell you that we would have been far happy with a President Powell than another 4 years of that asshole Bill Fucking Clinton.
> 
> 6. Would you like to take a look at other republican candidates now?
Click to expand...

*"Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed."*

Dumbfuck, I wasn't shocked by the small sample size. I even pointed out it was an appropriate size for New Hampshire. You're the one who posted a link to the wikipedia article about it while you claimed there were polls showing Republicans supported Powell for president, implying national support. That sample is far too small to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation.

*"I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim."*

Again, you demonstrate what an abject imbecile you are. It matters because polls taken that far in advance of an election are completely meaningless and do not accurately measure how the actual vote will pan out. Meaning that had Powell run, those early polls do not mean he necessarily would have had enough votes to win.

*"Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more."*

And there's no evidence that Conservative Republicans supported Powell.

*"Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position."*

You've yet to post a single poll that proves that.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Will someone, anyone who is in Cory L's corner throw in the towel please....this is embarrassing....


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.
> 
> 
> Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.
> 
> And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,
> 
> 
> it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.
> 
> You lose again because you're a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.
> 
> Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican  support for POwell in 96.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?
> 
> 
> Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What support??
> 
> Dumbfuck, at what point will you realize the only thing you've shown was a link to a link to exit polls which didn't demonstrate political breakdown, and a poll based on one state taken more than 4 months before the election.
> 
> Even worse for you, Powell's support came from Moderate and Liberal Republicans...
> 
> _New Hampshirites who say they are likely to vote in their state's Republican Presidential primary favor Gen. Colin L. Powell over Senator Bob Dole and the other announced contenders, according to a poll made public today._​​_The survey, conducted by Chris Potholm, who has run a polling operation at Bowdoin College in Maine for two decades, found General Powell drawing *34 percent*, compared with *25 percent* for Mr. Dole, 16 percent for Patrick J. Buchanan and 16 percent undecided. If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent._​​_The poll found that among Republicans describing themselves as *moderates*, General Powell was favored over Mr. Dole by *43 percent to 35 percent*; among liberals, he was favored by *38 percent to 12 percent*._​​_*"The astonishing thing is this is a man who nobody knows is a Republican,"* said Mr. Potholm, a professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin. "For Republican primary voters to embrace somebody to this degree I find truly extraordinary."_​​_The poll, of *300 voters*, was conducted the last week in September. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus six percentage points._​_Other recent polls in New Hampshire -- whose primaries, the first in the nation, are set for Feb. 20 -- have also found General Powell more popular among Republican voters than are the announced candidates._​
> So now we see the poll referenced in the wikipedia article *you linked* is actually just 300 Republicans from New Hampshire with a portion of them supporting Powell describing themselves as Moderate or Liberal; and with a margin of error of 6 percentage points.
> 
> Now while 300 respondents out of a pool of some 260,000 Republicans is a reasonable sample, the margin of error you get when extrapolating that 300 in a country of some 128 million Republicans is bigger than your IQ.
> 
> Even funnier, as you're claiming a poll taken many months before an election is an accurate predictor, that means the latest polls which show Biden winning in November spells certain doom for Impeached Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim.
> 
> 
> 3. Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more.
> 
> 4 Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position.
> 
> 
> 5. As a 96 supporter of Patrick Buchanan, I can speak that, supporting Buchanan as the BEST choice, in our opinions, did not mean that we OPPOSED Powell, or thought he was a BAD choice. I can certainly speak for us and tell you that we would have been far happy with a President Powell than another 4 years of that asshole Bill Fucking Clinton.
> 
> 6. Would you like to take a look at other republican candidates now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed."*
> 
> Dumbfuck, I wasn't shocked by the small sample size. I even pointed out it was an appropriate size for New Hampshire. You're the one who posted a link to the wikipedia article about it while you claimed there were polls showing Republicans supported Powell for president, implying national support. That sample is far too small to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation.
Click to expand...


Taken in isolation, maybe. Considered in the context of the exit polls, not so much.




> *"I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim."*
> 
> Again, you demonstrate what an abject imbecile you are. It matters because polls taken that far in advance of an election are completely meaningless and do not accurately measure how the actual vote will pan out. Meaning that had Powell run, those early polls do not mean he necessarily would have had enough votes to win.




First point is, as the point of this thread is "republican racism" that is irrelevant. Sure, some factor might have change to undermine his support between the poll and the actually voting. But the factor that changed would not be his race, it would have to be something else. 

and the exit polls shows that 4 months later, a huge number of people were still supporting him. To get that massive win over Clinton, pretty much ALL the republicans would have had to be voting for him AND a good sized number of blue dog democrats. 




> *"Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more."*
> 
> And there's no evidence that Conservative Republicans supported Powell.




Well, I recall it being discussed at the time, and there was no doubt among republicans that conservatives would support Powell in the general. Hell, the question was more, if he could win them in the PRIMARIES, and conclusion of most people was yes. 

Among the republicans I know, the conservatives ranged from eager supporters to accepting supporters. 

I can't recall if there were formal polling done to show that, or if it was just as consensus, because everyone could tell just by the way the conversation was going.







> *"Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position."*
> 
> You've yet to post a single poll that proves that.



There is a slim possibility in the exit poll, that republican conservatives, oddly enough, choose to vote for the white guy over black guy, and those votes were more than made up by white libs choosing to vote across party lines for the black guy, willing to give the GOP the win, if it meant having the first black president.


ANd by "slim chance", I mean, no, "no chance". It is nonsense. 


THat was why the draft Powell people were so excited about his electablity. Because he appealed to moderates with his policies while his military service and connection with Reagan and Bush administrations, appealed to more conservatives republicans. 


If he had run, he would have taken quite a number of moderates from Dole, and quite a number of conservatives from Buchanan, and almost certainly had won.

In the General, then, with a far more stark contrast between him and the hated Bill Clinton, EVERYONE would have fallen in line, and his connection with Reagan would have given him a nice link to the Reagan Democrats.


A scenario that would prefectly fit the exit polls results.


Your denial of this is not rational.


Would you like to move on to another example now?


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Will someone, anyone who is in Cory L's corner throw in the towel please....this is embarrassing....
> View attachment 317160




Dude. I'm humiliating you leftard race baiters and you know it.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will someone, anyone who is in Cory L's corner throw in the towel please....this is embarrassing....
> View attachment 317160
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm humiliating you leftard race baiters and you know it.
Click to expand...

Uh huh...I bet you just suffered a scratch in all of this huh


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Will someone, anyone who is in Cory L's corner throw in the towel please....this is embarrassing....
> View attachment 317160
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. I'm humiliating you leftard race baiters and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh...I bet you just suffered a scratch in all of this huh
Click to expand...



THe idea that republicans will not support black candiates for the Presidency because of "racism" is easily disproved by many examples.


We are stuck on the first one, by liberals stonewalling. But I'm happy to keep rubbing their faces in it, for as long as it takes.


----------



## Grumblenuts

The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> The Republicans have so far failed to nominate any black Presidential candidate. Who do you think will be the first black Presidential nominee? Why? When?




Like I said, stonewalling.


Yes, we have not actually nominated one yet. The dems? THey did ONE. and act like they've done it a hundred times.


Was the dem party of Bill Clinton as "racist" as the party of the gop today? Or does you logic only apply sometimes?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,
> 
> 
> thus refuting the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
Click to expand...

Still doesn't mean they would have actually voted for Powell.


----------



## xyz

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....


I think more likely it'll be Donald Trump Jr. or Jared Kushner wearing blackface.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
Click to expand...

Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want a link that it was the republcians and blue dog dems voting for the republican?
> 
> REally? Do you think it was the lib democrats who voted for Powell?
> 
> I mean, are you serious? Or just playing defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try not to distract yourself, Mr. Clarity. Mr.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> you want to change the subject to hide the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 96 was before everything was online, so finding it online can be a little tricky.
> 
> I did find this, reference to a republican poll, 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Powell Must Make The Race
> 
> 
> WHO APPOINTED ME THE SAVIOR OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?" Gen. Colin Powell asked with some irritation in a private conversation at his office last week. My answer is, the American people, beginning with the voters in New Hampshire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the first-in-the-nation primary, however, Republicans there gave none of the GOP contenders even 30 percent, while 37 percent told exit pollsters they would have voted for Powell. As Powell never set foot in New Hampshire, nor spent a nickel there, that was the important fact of the primary. "
> 
> Very strong support among republican voters. More support than any of the actual declared candidates.
Click to expand...

Again, that was one poll of 300 New Hampshire Republicans. You can't possibly extrapolate that to the rest of the nation. And again, most of those 300 who said they would have voted for Powell were Liberal or Moderate.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL

Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll. 

AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

xyz said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump supporters criticise Democrats because the last four letters spell 'rats'
> 
> 
> With the amount of black support Trump has won over -- he has grown the republican party by an exponential amount -- at least 70% of blacks either publicly or privately support Trump....in 2016 he won 8% of the black vote and he said this year he will win 95% of the black vote....with this increase in black support -- it's only reasonable to believe that after Trump -- the GOP may be nominating their first black presidential candidate very soon.....but who??
> 
> Among the possible candidates, whom do you believe is the most brilliant, capable and inspiring conservative mind in America?? I know there are a few rising stars who can definitely get the nod...like Diamond & Silk, either one of them could get the nod as soon as republicans stop treating them like minstrels and realize their actual political brilliance...
> 
> *"The pair, who are regulars on Fox News and InfoWars, were Democrats until 2015 but then made a dramatic shift to Trumpism by utilising social media and the right-wing ecosystem to promote arguments that are quite frankly nonsensical but somehow found an audience. Unsurprisingly Donald Trump is a big fan of them and their status has grown to the point that they are now talking at CPAC, America's most prominent conservative conference, which is currently happening in Washington."*
> 
> They were among the first to leave the Democratic plantation and cashed in on the lucrative business of black conservative novelty -- I know some may say Candace Owens, but Diamond and Silk switched over far earlier than Candace Owens did -- Candace switched after Trump became president, so it makes her look more like a grifter...There is also Reverend Jesse Lee Peterson, he has been a long time conservative scholar and could also be a great presidential candidate, he can shore up the evangelical vote -- here is a list of others:
> 
> *KingFace (Conservative Thug)*
> View attachment 310638
> *Sheriff Clarke -- (long time conservative lawman and strategist)*
> View attachment 310639
> 
> *Paris Dennard - (Former Bush official and brilliant political mind)*
> View attachment 310641
> 
> Kanye West is most likely the frontrunner for it right now, but there is stiff competition.....
> 
> 
> 
> I think more likely it'll be Donald Trump Jr. or Jared Kushner wearing blackface.
Click to expand...

Only if Jared does the moonwalk while in blackface


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
Click to expand...

So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.

What point are you trying to make here?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,
> 
> 
> thus refuting the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still doesn't mean they would have actually voted for Powell.
Click to expand...



 I would have. I was a Patrick Buchanan guy in that election. But, he lost the primaries and I voted for Bob Dole.  I would have been just as happy to vote for Colin Powell.


Of my friends in the republican party, most of them were MORE excited by the idea than I. 


Your denial of this fact, is you just holding on to a lie, a cool lie, that turns you from a partisan hack into a brave warrior against Evul Wacist republican super villains.


It is bullshit and you know it. 


Would you like to look at another example now, or do you want to do some more pathetic stonewalling?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
Click to expand...



Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward. 

Answering your question, should not be seen as agreeing with all implications made by the questions in your polls' set up. 

I repeat my question. 

Do you think culture of white America has any problems?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
Click to expand...




Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want a link that it was the republcians and blue dog dems voting for the republican?
> 
> REally? Do you think it was the lib democrats who voted for Powell?
> 
> I mean, are you serious? Or just playing defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try not to distract yourself, Mr. Clarity. Mr.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> you want to change the subject to hide the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 96 was before everything was online, so finding it online can be a little tricky.
> 
> I did find this, reference to a republican poll, 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Powell Must Make The Race
> 
> 
> WHO APPOINTED ME THE SAVIOR OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?" Gen. Colin Powell asked with some irritation in a private conversation at his office last week. My answer is, the American people, beginning with the voters in New Hampshire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the first-in-the-nation primary, however, Republicans there gave none of the GOP contenders even 30 percent, while 37 percent told exit pollsters they would have voted for Powell. As Powell never set foot in New Hampshire, nor spent a nickel there, that was the important fact of the primary. "
> 
> Very strong support among republican voters. More support than any of the actual declared candidates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that was one poll of 300 New Hampshire Republicans. You can't possibly extrapolate that to the rest of the nation. And again, most of those 300 who said they would have voted for Powell were Liberal or Moderate.
Click to expand...



How do you explain the exit polls then?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
Click to expand...



Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate. 

Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.


This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.

BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,
> 
> 
> thus refuting the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still doesn't mean they would have actually voted for Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would have. I was a Patrick Buchanan guy in that election. But, he lost the primaries and I voted for Bob Dole.  I would have been just as happy to vote for Colin Powell.
> 
> 
> Of my friends in the republican party, most of them were MORE excited by the idea than I.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this fact, is you just holding on to a lie, a cool lie, that turns you from a partisan hack into a brave warrior against Evul Wacist republican super villains.
> 
> 
> It is bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now, or do you want to do some more pathetic stonewalling?
Click to expand...

Why would you have been "happy" to vote for Colin when you just said you have no idea what his politics were...

You couldn't tell me any policy positions he had, but you would have been happy to vote for him why??

You just prove how full of shit you folks are .....how do you go from Pat Buchanan to being "happy" to support Colin Powell?? Did Pat endorse him??

Let's go back in time and see what Powell was saying that would make a "Buchanan supporter" happy to endorse him...

*"The speech by Powell, who once described himself as a Rockefeller Republican -- a liberal in terms of today's GOP -- was the highlight of the opening day of the 1996 Republican National Convention. It also was a counterpoint to the deeply conservative cast of the GOP delegates here."

"We might be black and treated as second-class citizens, but stick with it. Because in America, justice will eventually triumph -- 'We have to make sure that reduced government spending does not single out the poor and the middle class. Corporate welfare, and welfare for the wealthy, must be first in line for elimination," he said, to only scattered applause"*










						'We're a big enough party to disagree' Fiery Powell speech opens convention; CAMPAIGN 1996; REPUBLICAN CONVENTION
					

SAN DIEGO -- Gen. Colin L. Powell delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of Bob Dole, and a stern call for compassion and inclusion, in an eagerly awaited address to the Republican Party last night.



					www.baltimoresun.com


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.
> 
> 
> Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.
> 
> And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,
> 
> 
> it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.
> 
> You lose again because you're a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.
> 
> Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican  support for POwell in 96.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?
> 
> 
> Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What support??
> 
> Dumbfuck, at what point will you realize the only thing you've shown was a link to a link to exit polls which didn't demonstrate political breakdown, and a poll based on one state taken more than 4 months before the election.
> 
> Even worse for you, Powell's support came from Moderate and Liberal Republicans...
> 
> _New Hampshirites who say they are likely to vote in their state's Republican Presidential primary favor Gen. Colin L. Powell over Senator Bob Dole and the other announced contenders, according to a poll made public today._​​_The survey, conducted by Chris Potholm, who has run a polling operation at Bowdoin College in Maine for two decades, found General Powell drawing *34 percent*, compared with *25 percent* for Mr. Dole, 16 percent for Patrick J. Buchanan and 16 percent undecided. If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent._​​_The poll found that among Republicans describing themselves as *moderates*, General Powell was favored over Mr. Dole by *43 percent to 35 percent*; among liberals, he was favored by *38 percent to 12 percent*._​​_*"The astonishing thing is this is a man who nobody knows is a Republican,"* said Mr. Potholm, a professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin. "For Republican primary voters to embrace somebody to this degree I find truly extraordinary."_​​_The poll, of *300 voters*, was conducted the last week in September. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus six percentage points._​_Other recent polls in New Hampshire -- whose primaries, the first in the nation, are set for Feb. 20 -- have also found General Powell more popular among Republican voters than are the announced candidates._​
> So now we see the poll referenced in the wikipedia article *you linked* is actually just 300 Republicans from New Hampshire with a portion of them supporting Powell describing themselves as Moderate or Liberal; and with a margin of error of 6 percentage points.
> 
> Now while 300 respondents out of a pool of some 260,000 Republicans is a reasonable sample, the margin of error you get when extrapolating that 300 in a country of some 128 million Republicans is bigger than your IQ.
> 
> Even funnier, as you're claiming a poll taken many months before an election is an accurate predictor, that means the latest polls which show Biden winning in November spells certain doom for Impeached Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim.
> 
> 
> 3. Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more.
> 
> 4 Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position.
> 
> 
> 5. As a 96 supporter of Patrick Buchanan, I can speak that, supporting Buchanan as the BEST choice, in our opinions, did not mean that we OPPOSED Powell, or thought he was a BAD choice. I can certainly speak for us and tell you that we would have been far happy with a President Powell than another 4 years of that asshole Bill Fucking Clinton.
> 
> 6. Would you like to take a look at other republican candidates now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed."*
> 
> Dumbfuck, I wasn't shocked by the small sample size. I even pointed out it was an appropriate size for New Hampshire. You're the one who posted a link to the wikipedia article about it while you claimed there were polls showing Republicans supported Powell for president, implying national support. That sample is far too small to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken in isolation, maybe. Considered in the context of the exit polls, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim."*
> 
> Again, you demonstrate what an abject imbecile you are. It matters because polls taken that far in advance of an election are completely meaningless and do not accurately measure how the actual vote will pan out. Meaning that had Powell run, those early polls do not mean he necessarily would have had enough votes to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First point is, as the point of this thread is "republican racism" that is irrelevant. Sure, some factor might have change to undermine his support between the poll and the actually voting. But the factor that changed would not be his race, it would have to be something else.
> 
> and the exit polls shows that 4 months later, a huge number of people were still supporting him. To get that massive win over Clinton, pretty much ALL the republicans would have had to be voting for him AND a good sized number of blue dog democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more."*
> 
> And there's no evidence that Conservative Republicans supported Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I recall it being discussed at the time, and there was no doubt among republicans that conservatives would support Powell in the general. Hell, the question was more, if he could win them in the PRIMARIES, and conclusion of most people was yes.
> 
> Among the republicans I know, the conservatives ranged from eager supporters to accepting supporters.
> 
> I can't recall if there were formal polling done to show that, or if it was just as consensus, because everyone could tell just by the way the conversation was going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position."*
> 
> You've yet to post a single poll that proves that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slim possibility in the exit poll, that republican conservatives, oddly enough, choose to vote for the white guy over black guy, and those votes were more than made up by white libs choosing to vote across party lines for the black guy, willing to give the GOP the win, if it meant having the first black president.
> 
> 
> ANd by "slim chance", I mean, no, "no chance". It is nonsense.
> 
> 
> THat was why the draft Powell people were so excited about his electablity. Because he appealed to moderates with his policies while his military service and connection with Reagan and Bush administrations, appealed to more conservatives republicans.
> 
> 
> If he had run, he would have taken quite a number of moderates from Dole, and quite a number of conservatives from Buchanan, and almost certainly had won.
> 
> In the General, then, with a far more stark contrast between him and the hated Bill Clinton, EVERYONE would have fallen in line, and his connection with Reagan would have given him a nice link to the Reagan Democrats.
> 
> 
> A scenario that would prefectly fit the exit polls results.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this is not rational.
> 
> 
> Would you like to move on to another example now?
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You're literally making up most of that post from supposition and anecdotal evidence.

Again -- that exit poll does not report on the percentage of Republicans who would have voted for Powell. You're making that up too.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,
> 
> 
> thus refuting the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still doesn't mean they would have actually voted for Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would have. I was a Patrick Buchanan guy in that election. But, he lost the primaries and I voted for Bob Dole.  I would have been just as happy to vote for Colin Powell.
> 
> 
> Of my friends in the republican party, most of them were MORE excited by the idea than I.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this fact, is you just holding on to a lie, a cool lie, that turns you from a partisan hack into a brave warrior against Evul Wacist republican super villains.
> 
> 
> It is bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now, or do you want to do some more pathetic stonewalling?
Click to expand...

Liar, I didn't deny you would have voted for Powell. Your anecdotal claims are more meaningless than your New Hampshire poll.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
Click to expand...

And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want a link that it was the republcians and blue dog dems voting for the republican?
> 
> REally? Do you think it was the lib democrats who voted for Powell?
> 
> I mean, are you serious? Or just playing defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try not to distract yourself, Mr. Clarity. Mr.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> you want to change the subject to hide the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 96 was before everything was online, so finding it online can be a little tricky.
> 
> I did find this, reference to a republican poll, 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Powell Must Make The Race
> 
> 
> WHO APPOINTED ME THE SAVIOR OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?" Gen. Colin Powell asked with some irritation in a private conversation at his office last week. My answer is, the American people, beginning with the voters in New Hampshire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the first-in-the-nation primary, however, Republicans there gave none of the GOP contenders even 30 percent, while 37 percent told exit pollsters they would have voted for Powell. As Powell never set foot in New Hampshire, nor spent a nickel there, that was the important fact of the primary. "
> 
> Very strong support among republican voters. More support than any of the actual declared candidates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that was one poll of 300 New Hampshire Republicans. You can't possibly extrapolate that to the rest of the nation. And again, most of those 300 who said they would have voted for Powell were Liberal or Moderate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain the exit polls then?
Click to expand...

I've already explained it. It was a meaningless poll about someone not running for president.

Here's more explanation you won't understand.

The poll showed 68% of Dole voters would have voted for Powell. But 80% of Republicans voted for Dole. So Powell would have had less votes from Republicans, not more. And the poll showed Powell could have beaten Clinton by 48% to 36%-- But Clinton actually beat dole by 49% to 41%, meaning much, if not most, of the additional support for Powell came from Clinton voters.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
Click to expand...

*"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*

But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.
Click to expand...

Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:


> ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".


Face it. You're a very sick puppy.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Grumblenuts

Biff_Poindexter said:


> how do you go from Pat Buchanan to being "happy" to support Colin Powell??











						Why MSNBC Dumped Pat Buchanan: His 10 Most Outrageous Statements
					






					thinkprogress.org


----------



## katsteve2012

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
Click to expand...


Interesting. "Black people have an inability to succeed, don't come from stable families, and lack role models", but on the flip side, there is a growing contingent of "angry white males" who believe that there is "mass anti white discrimination" currently taking place in America, which is contributing to massive numbers of white Americans being displaced by blacks in college admissions and the workforce.

WTF? 

I want to know right now about this blatant, unfair favoritism that is "crippling" so many poor , maligned , white Americans  just for the sake of  UPLIFTING  "THE BLACKS"

Then  I wil not need to write anymore checks to the private school that I have paid for my grandkids to attend.


SMGDH @ this fucking nonsensical horseshit.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know clarity is something libs are not comfortable with, but we cons like it.
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You want a link that it was the republcians and blue dog dems voting for the republican?
> 
> REally? Do you think it was the lib democrats who voted for Powell?
> 
> I mean, are you serious? Or just playing defense?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try not to distract yourself, Mr. Clarity. Mr.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> you want to change the subject to hide the point
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Focus:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the majority of that support, was from Republicans
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 96 was before everything was online, so finding it online can be a little tricky.
> 
> I did find this, reference to a republican poll, 1996.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why Powell Must Make The Race
> 
> 
> WHO APPOINTED ME THE SAVIOR OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY?" Gen. Colin Powell asked with some irritation in a private conversation at his office last week. My answer is, the American people, beginning with the voters in New Hampshire.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.newsweek.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "In the first-in-the-nation primary, however, Republicans there gave none of the GOP contenders even 30 percent, while 37 percent told exit pollsters they would have voted for Powell. As Powell never set foot in New Hampshire, nor spent a nickel there, that was the important fact of the primary. "
> 
> Very strong support among republican voters. More support than any of the actual declared candidates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, that was one poll of 300 New Hampshire Republicans. You can't possibly extrapolate that to the rest of the nation. And again, most of those 300 who said they would have voted for Powell were Liberal or Moderate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How do you explain the exit polls then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've already explained it. It was a meaningless poll about someone not running for president.
> 
> Here's more explanation you won't understand.
> 
> The poll showed 68% of Dole voters would have voted for Powell. But 80% of Republicans voted for Dole. So Powell would have had less votes from Republicans, not more. And the poll showed Powell could have beaten Clinton by 48% to 36%-- But Clinton actually beat dole by 49% to 41%, meaning much, if not most, of the additional support for Powell came from Clinton voters.
Click to expand...



Funny, how you were able to tell that, from the "meaningless poll". I guess there is some meaning in it after all.


And strangely, what meaning you found, shows exactly what I predicted. THat powell would get the vast majority of the Dole Supporters, AND  a good chunck of the Reagan Democrats.

And thus win.


Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,
> 
> 
> thus refuting the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still doesn't mean they would have actually voted for Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would have. I was a Patrick Buchanan guy in that election. But, he lost the primaries and I voted for Bob Dole.  I would have been just as happy to vote for Colin Powell.
> 
> 
> Of my friends in the republican party, most of them were MORE excited by the idea than I.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this fact, is you just holding on to a lie, a cool lie, that turns you from a partisan hack into a brave warrior against Evul Wacist republican super villains.
> 
> 
> It is bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now, or do you want to do some more pathetic stonewalling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would you have been "happy" to vote for Colin when you just said you have no idea what his politics were...
> 
> You couldn't tell me any policy positions he had, but you would have been happy to vote for him why??
> 
> You just prove how full of shit you folks are .....how do you go from Pat Buchanan to being "happy" to support Colin Powell?? Did Pat endorse him??
> 
> Let's go back in time and see what Powell was saying that would make a "Buchanan supporter" happy to endorse him...
> .....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'We're a big enough party to disagree' Fiery Powell speech opens convention; CAMPAIGN 1996; REPUBLICAN CONVENTION
> 
> 
> SAN DIEGO -- Gen. Colin L. Powell delivered an enthusiastic endorsement of Bob Dole, and a stern call for compassion and inclusion, in an eagerly awaited address to the Republican Party last night.
> 
> 
> 
> www.baltimoresun.com
Click to expand...



Because Bill and Hillary Clinton were both assholes.  A moderate republican, would have been better than another 4 years of those assholes. Much like the way I feel in line behind Dole, after the Primaries.


You haven't noticed that I am a partisan republican? Seriously?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> We're used to you being wrong pretty much all the time. And whiny. And tearful.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You say stupid shit like that, not when it is true, but when you are desperate to distract from how little you can say to support your position.
> 
> 
> Exit polls are the Gold Standard of political polls. They showed that in 1996, the republican voters, along with a good sized chunk of Reagan Democrats, would have been happy to elect a black Republican President.
> 
> 
> This of course, should be a moot historical point, because Powell choose not to run and very few blacks are even in the Republican Party.
> 
> 
> But you can't admit it. Because you lib NEED your lie, that the Republican Party is terribly racist.
> 
> 
> Because without that, you might have to make the case for your policies, based on their actual merits.
> 
> 
> And you know, that you cannot.
> 
> 
> You need to be able to cry "racist" and have the be the end of the debate.
> 
> 
> 
> Because, you know you can never win an actual, real debate.
> 
> 
> 
> That is what this is about. And you being a smug asshole about it, is just you being a smug asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, the thread questioned, "The First Black Republican Presidential Nominee Will Be....."
> 
> Someone who never ran for that office will NOT be that person.
> 
> Jeez, you're one mentally ill patient.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I, and others pointed out, that the Republican HAVE the Presidency and the Vice Presidency. So it will be awhile before we have openings.
> 
> 
> BUT, it is not because we are against the idea in principle. It has just not worked out that way yet.
> 
> 
> Which was the point demonstrated by the Powell Exit Polls.
> 
> 
> That was all explained. What part of that is too hard for you to understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you delude yourself into believing a black man who never ran for president has a chance at being the first black Republican president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I reject your pretense of you being too stupid to under stand the concept of linear time.
> 
> 
> YOu are stupid, I will grant you that, but you are not so fucking profoundly retarded that you are too stupid to understand the concept that he had a very strong chance, at one time in the past.
> 
> That is my point. YOu are welcome to disagree with it, and explain why you disagree with it.
> 
> 
> YOu are not welcome to pretend to be to stupid to read it and understand it. THAT IS NOT CREDIBLE. STOP FUCKING AROUND.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck, that's not what this thread asked. It didn't ask, which black wasn't nominated by the Republican party -- it asked who will be the first. Powell never ran, so Powell will not be the first. We're still waiting for the first. Maybe that will come in about another hundred years are so. In the meantime, buzz your nurse to come change your drool cup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump is likely to be re-elected in 2020. THat's four more years right there. And Pence will almost certainly be the next candidate, so that's another four years after THAT.
> 
> 
> And if he wins, it could be TWELVE years, until the next opening.
> 
> AND, actually, 16, because he would run for re-election, and likely lose.
> 
> 
> It is pretty silly to try to guess that far ahead.
> 
> 
> BUt it is worth noting, that the* REASON FOR THE DELAY, IS NOT ONE OF PRINCIPLE, BUT JUST THE WAY IT WORKED OUT, AS DEMONSTRATED BY THE 96 EXIT POLLS.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up this shit as you go along. It's not a given Impeached Trump will win this year. Even if he does, who knows if Pence will run in 2024. Going back to Carter, 3 VP's ran in the ensuing election and 3 did not. And even if Pence ran, you don't know that he would win. You also don't know who else might run against him, if that were to happen.
> 
> So now you're just inventing silly excuses for why the GOP has never nominated a black candidate.
> 
> How sad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly.
> 
> It happens a lot.
> 
> I would never offer you an "excuse" on ANYTHING. "Excuse" indicates I think that words or reason can effect your hate of anyone who stands in your way. We both know that is not true.
> 
> 
> The OP, as admitted by the man that made it, is all about just smearing the GOP as racist.
> 
> 
> Which it is not.
> 
> As demonstrated by the 96 exit polls, showing that Republican voters were fine with the idea of a Republican Black President.
> 
> 
> That is the point of the thread and my refuting it, right there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Hoping the sitting President is re-elected is not silly."*
> 
> That's not what I pointed out was silly. Dayum, you're a fucking moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In my world, I am hoping that we republicans don't have an opening for the slot, until, 2032.
> 
> 
> I can't predict who will be ready for prime time by then.
> 
> 
> But, i can point out, that in the past, as a Party we have been ready for one, if one had been offered. Which if the point of this thread was just vile race baiting, that would refute the point of the thread.
> 
> 
> If that is NOT the point of the thread, then my point about the 96 polls is moot, and you guys won't care about it enough to even dispute it.
> 
> 
> Cause, it's irrelevant to candidates moving forward. So, why would you carer enough to fight over it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Besides you, no one cares what you hope for.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile, here in reality, you could have a black nominee as soon as 2024. But that's not gonna happen because too many conservatives are still too racist.
> 
> And your point's been refuted even though it's not relevant to this thread. A poll does not nominate anyone. Anyone can easily say to someone's face taking the poll that the would have voted for Powell had he ran -- but actually voting for him in the secrecy of a ballot box is entirely different.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your position is that we can't have a black republican president because too many conservative voters are racist.
> 
> 
> 
> I knew that was the point of this thread. All you bs to the contrary, was just bs.
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep going back to the documented with scientific polls that the Republican voters of 1996 would have been happy to have elected Powell.
> 
> 
> Hell, even Biff has admitted that. Albeit with heavy spin.
> 
> Your claims of racism being the bar has been disproved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell's experience in military matters made him a very popular figure with both American political parties. Many Democrats admired his moderate stance on military matters, while many Republicans saw him as a great asset associated with the successes of past Republican administrations. Put forth as a potential Democratic Vice Presidential nominee in the 1992 U.S. presidential election[43] or even potentially replacing Vice President Dan Quayle as the Republican Vice Presidential nominee,[44] Powell eventually declared himself a Republican and began to campaign for Republican candidates in 1995.[45][46] He was touted as a possible opponent of Bill Clinton in the 1996 U.S. presidential election, possibly capitalizing on a split conservative vote in Iowa[47] and even leading New Hampshire polls for the GOP nomination,[48] but Powell declined, citing a lack of passion for politics.[49] Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day.[50] Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes "
> 
> "Powell was mentioned as a potential candidate in the 2000 U.S. presidential election, but again decided against running.[53] Once Texas Governor George W. Bush secured the Republican nomination, Powell endorsed him for president and spoke at the 2000 Republican National Convention. Bush won the general election and appointed Powell as Secretary of State. "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So in other words -- you still can't talk about anyone else other than Powell...the guy you called a traitor for telling the truth about the republican party...
> 
> Can you tell me what was Powell's position on Social Security in 1996??
> 
> What about Powell's position on labor protections or Wall street de-regulation??
> 
> Bottom line is....Herman Cain ran for president...and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win...
> 
> Alan Keyes ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> Ben Carson ran for president and he didn't get enough "REPUBLICAN SUPPORT" to win....
> 
> And with every reiteration of a black "republican" candidate -- the candidates have been more and more minstrel like in their policies -- to the point it wasn't even about their polices, just whether or not they would parrot the talking points that appeases the closet racists.....so those closet racists can point at him and say -- "see, we got a black guy too"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure I can.  And already have. And his complaints were not the truth. They were bullshit.
> 
> 2. I don't recall Powell's positions on this issues from back then. As he was not running, I don't recall him publishing many position papers.
> 
> 3. Herman Cain was dogpiled by the vile media, and his base, the Religious Right, in my opinion, were fools to give their bullshit accusations a shred of credibility.
> 
> 4. Alan Keyes was set up by the Country Club Establishment Republicans who found him too conservative for their tastes.
> 
> 5. Carson was just too nice, during a period of time, when that is seen as weakness. Be that as it may, if he had won the primaries, he would have happily gotten my vote.
> 
> 6. Your perception of how we republicans view our candidates is just you assuming bad shit about people you don't like. My friends who were big Powell supporters, really liked his military background. I really liked the way Cain dumped on the vile media, one of the things I like about Trump today. Keyes? Don'tn know any big Keyes partisans.
> 
> 7.ALL YOU HAVE IS RACE  BAITING.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> And you still have no black candidate for the GOP on the horizon.
> 
> Plenty of lame excuses though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Never think that I am giving YOU an excuse.
> 
> 
> "Excuse" implies that I think that reason or facts could influence or even lessen your hate.
> 
> 
> We both know that that is not true.
> 
> 
> NOthign I can say or do, or anyone can say or do, will ever sway your hate or bullshit positions one inch.
> 
> 
> 
> You are driven by ideology and hate and who knows what else. Not facts or reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Dumbfuck ... you still have no black Republican candidates. And given the level of racism on the right, you probably won't see one in your lifetime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And that is why I keep mentioning the 96 exit polls. They disprove the real point to this thread.
> 
> Whatever the various reasons for the lack of black Republican Presidents, the 96 exit polls prove that republican racism is not one of them.
> 
> 
> EVERY TIME you make the claim that the reason for the lack is republican "Racism", I will point out that the 96 exit polls prove you are a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> No, you keep mentioning the '96 exit polls because you're an idiot. Again -- those polls don't break down that question by party affiliation; rendering it impossible to determine how many of those who said they would have voted for Powell were Republicans. 23% of Clinton voters said they would have voted for Powell, along with 39% of Perot voters. Not to mention, not every Dole voter was a Republican.
> 
> And again, that involves saying you'd vote for someone who wasn't even running. That bears little reflection on how they would have actually voted.
> 
> Even worse for your nonsense -- there's no evidence Powell would have beaten Dole in the primaries. Polls showed them tied in a dead heat when Powell's name was tossed in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is possible that Powell, inexperienced as he was, would have sucked at campaigning and lost to Dole in an actual campaign.
> 
> That factor is unknown.
> 
> 
> BUT, your position is that GOP racism is the problem. Powell's campaign ability might have been a mystery, but his race was not, and GOP voters had no problem with it.
> 
> 
> SO, your claim of racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican Presidents, is refuted.
> 
> 
> Why is it so important to  you, the idea that Powell could not have won? Is your world view so fragile, that a black presidential candidate destroys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, you lie by claiming GOP voters had no problem with it. The exit polls do not reflect party affiliation in support of Powell.
> 
> The GOP can't find an actual single black candidate they can support for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, the exit polls were not the only polls, just the Gold Standard.
> 
> 
> Funny, how you have to keep ignoring information I already gave you, to make your argument.
> 
> 
> Almost like, your position is completely at odds with reality.
> 
> 
> The 96 polls showed that we had at least one, we could have supported.
> 
> 
> And I'm pretty sure that if they had won the primaries, the party would have dealt with Cain, or Keyes, or even Carson.
> 
> 
> YOu keep making a big deal over the fact that POwell choose not to run.
> 
> 
> Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?
> 
> I bet it is not the republicans that would have been the margin of victory, but the independents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Those guys did run. YOu want take a look at their polling vs the dem candidates?"*
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> The thread topic is: _"The First Black Republican Presidential *Nominee* Will Be....."_
> 
> None of those candidates won the GOP nominee for president. Not one.
> 
> You're literally trying to argue something this thread is not about to make a point that ALL black GOP candidates are losers because they can't get the support of their party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is historical fact that there has not yet been a black REpublican President. Indeed there has only been ONE black president in American history.
> 
> 
> We know that.
> 
> 
> BUT, everytime you say something silly, like blaming gop racism for this, that invites me to respond by pointing out historical facts that refute that.
> 
> 
> Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President.
> 
> 
> 1996 is one very good example.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other possible examples? Or are you just here to be a troll?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Such as past times when the majority of republicans were happy to support a black candidate to be President. "*
> 
> You've yet to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've made a big point about that. But do you actually care? If I link to a poll showing that, will you just admit that it shows what it shows, or will you just move on to your next line of attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, dumbfuck, because I never said a majority of Republicans are racist.
> 
> You'd do much better if you at least argued against what I actually post -- not what you hallucinate I post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!! All that race baiting, and harping on it, and now, it's walking it back time.
> 
> 
> Well, thanks for admitting that me finding the polls for you to see, would be a waste of time.
> 
> 
> So, what is your next line of attack? That a large MINORITY of the gop is racist, and for some reason....
> 
> 
> what exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You remain an imbecile as I walked back nothing. My position has always been the right is too racist to nominate a black candidate for president. That doesn't mean a majority of Republicans is racist. It means there's not enough votes to nominate a black because too many on the right will never vote for a black.
> 
> Nothing I've posted here says anything different than that and nothing you posted proves otherwise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The polls from 96 say otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Colin Powell - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Powell defeated Clinton 50–38 in a hypothetical match-up proposed to voters in the exit polls conducted on Election Day. "
> 
> 
> Your pretense that that does not show Republicans voting for the republican is silly.
> 
> 
> YOu are ignoring documented historical reality, so you can call people names, with a thin, shitty excuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You never cease being stupid, do ya?
> 
> That's a link to wikipedia, not to these mysterious polls you can't seem to link.
> 
> And even your wikipedia article fails to prove your imbecilic claims. It refers to two polls ... one being the exit polls which don't actually break down that question by political party -- and the other being from one [northern] state only and roughly 4 months before the election and including someone not running. Couldn't be more meaningless. Which is typical for what you post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They show the black republican winning, despite the loss of support from the number of "racist" republicans, not matter how big or small that number might be. We can disagree on the size of that number, but the lack of impact, is clear.
> 
> 
> This refutes your position, that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this obvious fact, is you being stupid. YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"They show the black republican winning "*
> 
> LOL
> 
> There was no black Republican running.
> 
> Even funnier -- Powell wasn't even a Republican when those state election polls were taken.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He had declared himself a republican, and the polls were taken asking people to choose between Powell and the Democrat Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> And in the exit polls, the numbers showed that Powell would have defeated Clinton.
> 
> 
> Despite how ever many, or few, racist republicans would have voted race over party.
> 
> And considering the outcome and the previous polls showing mostly the moderate numbers of Reagan Democrats that might have crossed party lines,
> 
> 
> it is obvious that republican racism is not one of the reasons for the lack of black republican Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He didn't declare himself a Republican until November, 1995. The one and only primary poll you [sorta] referenced [via wikipedia] was for New Hampshire, a northern state, taken in October.
> 
> You lose again because you're a loser.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the support for Powell, from the republican party is just you stonewalling in the face of documented history.
> 
> Your claim of racism being the cause of the lack of black republican candidates is disproved by the republican  support for POwell in 96.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at other, actually DECLARED candidates to see how "republican racism" did or did not effect their campaigns?
> 
> 
> Or would you like to admit that facts don't matter to you? Your choice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What support??
> 
> Dumbfuck, at what point will you realize the only thing you've shown was a link to a link to exit polls which didn't demonstrate political breakdown, and a poll based on one state taken more than 4 months before the election.
> 
> Even worse for you, Powell's support came from Moderate and Liberal Republicans...
> 
> _New Hampshirites who say they are likely to vote in their state's Republican Presidential primary favor Gen. Colin L. Powell over Senator Bob Dole and the other announced contenders, according to a poll made public today._​​_The survey, conducted by Chris Potholm, who has run a polling operation at Bowdoin College in Maine for two decades, found General Powell drawing *34 percent*, compared with *25 percent* for Mr. Dole, 16 percent for Patrick J. Buchanan and 16 percent undecided. If General Powell, who has not announced a candidacy, is excluded from the race, Mr. Dole leads with 35 percent._​​_The poll found that among Republicans describing themselves as *moderates*, General Powell was favored over Mr. Dole by *43 percent to 35 percent*; among liberals, he was favored by *38 percent to 12 percent*._​​_*"The astonishing thing is this is a man who nobody knows is a Republican,"* said Mr. Potholm, a professor of government and legal studies at Bowdoin. "For Republican primary voters to embrace somebody to this degree I find truly extraordinary."_​​_The poll, of *300 voters*, was conducted the last week in September. The margin of sampling error was plus or minus six percentage points._​_Other recent polls in New Hampshire -- whose primaries, the first in the nation, are set for Feb. 20 -- have also found General Powell more popular among Republican voters than are the announced candidates._​
> So now we see the poll referenced in the wikipedia article *you linked* is actually just 300 Republicans from New Hampshire with a portion of them supporting Powell describing themselves as Moderate or Liberal; and with a margin of error of 6 percentage points.
> 
> Now while 300 respondents out of a pool of some 260,000 Republicans is a reasonable sample, the margin of error you get when extrapolating that 300 in a country of some 128 million Republicans is bigger than your IQ.
> 
> Even funnier, as you're claiming a poll taken many months before an election is an accurate predictor, that means the latest polls which show Biden winning in November spells certain doom for Impeached Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim.
> 
> 
> 3. Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more.
> 
> 4 Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position.
> 
> 
> 5. As a 96 supporter of Patrick Buchanan, I can speak that, supporting Buchanan as the BEST choice, in our opinions, did not mean that we OPPOSED Powell, or thought he was a BAD choice. I can certainly speak for us and tell you that we would have been far happy with a President Powell than another 4 years of that asshole Bill Fucking Clinton.
> 
> 6. Would you like to take a look at other republican candidates now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Your pretense of being shocked that polls ask small numbers of people and the extrapolate, is not credible. Dismissed."*
> 
> Dumbfuck, I wasn't shocked by the small sample size. I even pointed out it was an appropriate size for New Hampshire. You're the one who posted a link to the wikipedia article about it while you claimed there were polls showing Republicans supported Powell for president, implying national support. That sample is far too small to be extrapolated to represent the entire nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken in isolation, maybe. Considered in the context of the exit polls, not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I'm not sure why you fixate on the "4 months" before the election. Your lib position is a claim of generations long racism, being the reason for the lack of black republican presidents. Whether the support was on election day or a couple of months earlier, it still is strong evidence towards refuting that claim."*
> 
> Again, you demonstrate what an abject imbecile you are. It matters because polls taken that far in advance of an election are completely meaningless and do not accurately measure how the actual vote will pan out. Meaning that had Powell run, those early polls do not mean he necessarily would have had enough votes to win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> First point is, as the point of this thread is "republican racism" that is irrelevant. Sure, some factor might have change to undermine his support between the poll and the actually voting. But the factor that changed would not be his race, it would have to be something else.
> 
> and the exit polls shows that 4 months later, a huge number of people were still supporting him. To get that massive win over Clinton, pretty much ALL the republicans would have had to be voting for him AND a good sized number of blue dog democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Re: your point about moderates and liberal republicans supporting Powell more. His political positions were quite moderate for the party at that time. It makes sense that the moderates would like him more."*
> 
> And there's no evidence that Conservative Republicans supported Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I recall it being discussed at the time, and there was no doubt among republicans that conservatives would support Powell in the general. Hell, the question was more, if he could win them in the PRIMARIES, and conclusion of most people was yes.
> 
> Among the republicans I know, the conservatives ranged from eager supporters to accepting supporters.
> 
> I can't recall if there were formal polling done to show that, or if it was just as consensus, because everyone could tell just by the way the conversation was going.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Your position is that republican racism is why the lack of black republican presidents. The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy. This refutes your position."*
> 
> You've yet to post a single poll that proves that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a slim possibility in the exit poll, that republican conservatives, oddly enough, choose to vote for the white guy over black guy, and those votes were more than made up by white libs choosing to vote across party lines for the black guy, willing to give the GOP the win, if it meant having the first black president.
> 
> 
> ANd by "slim chance", I mean, no, "no chance". It is nonsense.
> 
> 
> THat was why the draft Powell people were so excited about his electablity. Because he appealed to moderates with his policies while his military service and connection with Reagan and Bush administrations, appealed to more conservatives republicans.
> 
> 
> If he had run, he would have taken quite a number of moderates from Dole, and quite a number of conservatives from Buchanan, and almost certainly had won.
> 
> In the General, then, with a far more stark contrast between him and the hated Bill Clinton, EVERYONE would have fallen in line, and his connection with Reagan would have given him a nice link to the Reagan Democrats.
> 
> 
> A scenario that would prefectly fit the exit polls results.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this is not rational.
> 
> 
> Would you like to move on to another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're literally making up most of that post from supposition and anecdotal evidence.
> 
> Again -- that exit poll does not report on the percentage of Republicans who would have voted for Powell. You're making that up too.
Click to expand...



The information is not complete, but is far less spotty than you are pretending. 

You are the one ignoring information, and making up outlandish scenarios to explain away the numbers, not I.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> The exit polls show that the conservatives, when faced with a choice of Powell, the black guy, or Bill CLinton the white guy, choose the black guy.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah? Bullshit.
> 
> 
> 
> On Nov. 5, 1996, Voter News Service — the organization hired by the TV networks to do exit polling — asked people at the polls, who had just given Bill Clinton 49 percent of the vote, Bob Dole 41 percent and Ross Perot 8 percent, how they would have voted if the Republican candidate had been Gen. Colin L. Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual - None of the above wins - hands down!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And the voters said, they would have supported Powell.
> 
> And the majority of that support, was from Republicans,
> 
> 
> thus refuting the claim that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is republican racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still doesn't mean they would have actually voted for Powell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I would have. I was a Patrick Buchanan guy in that election. But, he lost the primaries and I voted for Bob Dole.  I would have been just as happy to vote for Colin Powell.
> 
> 
> Of my friends in the republican party, most of them were MORE excited by the idea than I.
> 
> 
> Your denial of this fact, is you just holding on to a lie, a cool lie, that turns you from a partisan hack into a brave warrior against Evul Wacist republican super villains.
> 
> 
> It is bullshit and you know it.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now, or do you want to do some more pathetic stonewalling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, I didn't deny you would have voted for Powell. Your anecdotal claims are more meaningless than your New Hampshire poll.
Click to expand...



The LIe is the LIe of Republican racism. You are  dismissing the data from polling, because you just "know" that republicans wont' vote for a black guy. You are trusting your assumptions about people you hate, instead of actual data.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
Click to expand...



YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.


Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.


So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there. 

Would you like to look at another example now?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
Click to expand...



I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.

It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.

And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.

You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:
> 
> 
> 
> ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face it. You're a very sick puppy.
Click to expand...



You are quibbling over details to avoid the meat of my argument. 

You asked me, based on a poll of how people view "blacks" if republicans respect or treat seriously blacks.


I answered. You are now trying to avoid addressing my answer.


BTW, do you think that white American culture has problems?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> how do you go from Pat Buchanan to being "happy" to support Colin Powell??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why MSNBC Dumped Pat Buchanan: His 10 Most Outrageous Statements
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thinkprogress.org
Click to expand...



Because Bill and HIllary Clinton were both assholes, and I am a partisan republican.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. "Black people have an inability to succeed, don't come from stable families, and lack role models", but on the flip side, there is a growing contingent of "angry white males" who believe that there is "mass anti white discrimination" currently taking place in America, which is contributing to massive numbers of white Americans being displaced by blacks in college admissions and the workforce.
> 
> WTF?
> 
> I want to know right now about this blatant, unfair favoritism that is "crippling" so many poor , maligned , white Americans  just for the sake of  UPLIFTING  "THE BLACKS"
> 
> Then  I wil not need to write anymore checks to the private school that I have paid for my grandkids to attend.
> 
> 
> SMGDH @ this fucking nonsensical horseshit.
Click to expand...



Kat, 

Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions. 


He asked a legit question and had a poll with answers for discussion purposes. If you want to fight him on the assumptions of his question, take it up with him.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting. "Black people have an inability to succeed, don't come from stable families, and lack role models", but on the flip side, there is a growing contingent of "angry white males" who believe that there is "mass anti white discrimination" currently taking place in America, which is contributing to massive numbers of white Americans being displaced by blacks in college admissions and the workforce.
> 
> WTF?
> 
> I want to know right now about this blatant, unfair favoritism that is "crippling" so many poor , maligned , white Americans  just for the sake of  UPLIFTING  "THE BLACKS"
> 
> Then  I wil not need to write anymore checks to the private school that I have paid for my grandkids to attend.
> 
> 
> SMGDH @ this fucking nonsensical horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Kat,
> 
> Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.
> 
> 
> He asked a legit question and had a poll with answers for discussion purposes. If you want to fight him on the assumptions of his question, take it up with him.
Click to expand...


I'm not looking to fight anyone. I only noticed an inconsistent equation in something that I mentioned, which is:

"How do such incapable, poorly mentored people
( as you described) displace an exact opposite majority in college admissions as well as the workforce"? 

Just curious, but not important. Carry on. 

I will just watch.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
Click to expand...

The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:
> 
> 
> 
> ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face it. You're a very sick puppy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quibbling over details to avoid the meat of my argument.
Click to expand...

No. You can't handle the truth is all.


> You asked me, based on a poll of how people view "blacks" if republicans respect or treat seriously blacks.


No, moron. The poll was about how the public views "Race in America 2019." Subtitled: "Public has negative views of the country’s racial progress; more than half say Trump has made race relations worse." It was NOT about "how people view blacks." You should avoid engaging in such discussions since you evidently don't (can't?) understand the difference.  I asked you:


> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?





> I answered. You are now trying to avoid addressing my answer.


I addressed it and "You're a very sick puppy."


> BTW, do you think that white American culture has problems?


Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Has COVID-19 increased the price of tea in China? Get a clue.


Correll said:


> Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.


What are these "assumptions" of mine? All in your head? If you could manage to provide some compelling evidence in support of them.. that could be refreshing. Also, define "white American culture"?


----------



## IM2

The first black president came from a single parent family. There are plenty of role models in the black community. Republicans are simply inaccurate in their analysis of the black community and that includes the blacks used by people like Correll.

We’ve heard all the fake news calling itself political incorrectness, telling us that the problems plaguing black communities are self-inflicted and include: unmarried births, fatherless homes, refusal to take education seriously, rap music, worship of thug culture, genetic inferiority, low IQ, making up racism to get paid, the victim mentality, waiting for a handout, government dependence, special rights and more. All this is crap. So, let’s step out of the box. Let’s really leave the plantation. Let us truly be politically incorrect. The root cause of the problems blacks face today are due to white racism.

Yes, that’s what I said. I am not waiting for whites to give me anything free. I don’t have some so-called victim mentality whereby I blame whites for my failings. If I have failed at things, I failed on my own. It’s time whites stopped the juvenile name calling and tightened up. The reality of racism is not about failing, it is about denial. The denial of opportunity. If anyone has failed it is the whites who have chosen to fall for what the race pimps have told them. White racism IS the root cause, it is the fundamental reason for the occurrences of problems in the black community.

Personal or Individual responsibility according to every definition, is the idea that human beings create their own life experiences by their choices. I say this because it is apparent in these times, there are whites who do not seem to understand what it really means. Whites as a race have a 400 year pattern of behavior that has been consistent and it is based on a belief of superiority. There have been whites throughout American history that do not exhibit such behavior, but that doesn't erase the overall record.

I say the root cause of the problems blacks face today, right now, are due to white racism. Again you will ask, “Why?” Because there is proven or observable evidence that shows this to be true. Because that evidence exists, it is impossible for us to be making it up. Some whites refuse to accept this and argue citing various issues that are the result of racism trying to dispute any black or non white person who dares to say that racism has had a continuing negative effect on our communities. The arguments they make are made against indisputable evidence to the contrary. We know that the suburbs were built with guaranteed government backed loans given primarily to whites. We know that black communities were redlined making real estate values less. We know federal housing policy created the slums and ghettos. We know that city zoning policies made it so black communities were divided by freeways. We know that because property values in black communities are less, it affects the funding of schools located in black communities. We know that donors from outside the black community have undue influence relative to city policies and that influence has negatively impacted black communities. We know that today, right now, in the 21st century, a process called retail redlining exists whereby retail businesses do not place businesses in black communities. All of these statements are supported by loads of evidence and people have refused to listen. However, every “conservative” Tom, Dick, Jane, and yes, Spot, has an opinion.

Definition of fact: 1 a : something that has actual existence. b : an actual occurrence. 2 : a piece of information presented as having objective reality. 3: the quality of being actual. 4: a thing done. b archaic : action. c obsolete: feat

Definition of opinion:1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter. 2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge. b *: *a generally held view. 3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert. b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based.

Definition of delusion:1 a : something that is falsely or delusively believed or propagated. b psychology : a persistent false psychotic belief regarding the self or persons or objects outside the self that is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary; also: the abnormal state marked by such beliefs. 2 : the act of tricking or deceiving someone the state of being deluded.

Fact- the root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism.

Opinion/Delusion- Anti white discrimination.

Definition of empirical:1 : originating in or based on observation or experience. 2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory. 3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment. 4 : of or relating to empiricism.

Books such as_ “Color of Law”, “White Rage”, “American Apartheid”, “The New Jim Crow”, “We Charge Genocide,” or “Racism without Racists”_ to name a few, provide example after example of the great pains the America government took to establish and maintain a system based on white racial supremacy. They detail the toll such policies have inflicted upon blacks as well as all other people of color in America. Countless studies have been done detailing the negative effects that purposefully designed racially exclusionary American public policy has had upon black communities. Yet, to say that the root cause of the problems blacks face is due to white racism gets you ridiculed and called all kinds of childish names by racists in the white community and by a few blacks or other nonwhites who have been shamed into not defending themselves to the point of adopting right wing opinions about some kind of imaginary victim mentality.

Here is one example of how white racism creates a problem for blacks. It is common knowledge in the Black community that having a "Black" name can often lead to, for example, employment applications being discarded, and other similar forms of discrimination. People of all colors with black sounding names get rejected at the interview stage. The next few lines are from a white poster on an internet discussion forum.

_“I can say for sure that happens because I did it. Before retirement I was an Engineer. The last 20 years of my career I was a Manager and Director and I hired hundreds of people. I reviewed well over a thousand resumes for all kinds of positions. Everything from Secretaries to Engineering Managers. Both Salary and Hourly. I always culled out the resumes with Black Ethnic names. Never short listed anybody with a Black Ethnic name. Never hired them.”

“Since the Fortune 50 company I worked for had a stupid "affirmative action" hiring policies I never mentioned it to anybody and I always got away with it. A couple of times I was instructed to improve my departmental "diversity" demographics but I always ignored it and never got into any trouble. My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times but I was also probably right 99% of the time._​Now here is empirical evidence of the fact that white racism causes a problem for blacks. This situation had nothing to do with the garbage Correll says about some kind of cultural problem in the black community and points a finger at a huge cultural problem in the white community. Correll is part of that cultural deficiency.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Was the dem party of Bill Clinton as "racist" as the party of the gop today? Or does you logic only apply sometimes?


Don't know. Calls for personal "opinion" which, as IM2 has just pointed out (again), is of no value. Especially as in this case from a white guy (like me or you). However, with the tiniest bit of effort either of us could research the question and in a few minutes find plenty of "empirical" "evidence" decisively supporting one conclusion or another. But it appears you can't be bothered because you don't really care about obtaining an unbiased, fact based result.  You just shoot from the hip, fast and loose. That is why you fail, time and again.


			https://www.jstor.org/stable/41069676?seq=1
		









						Will Democrats Finally Align With Racial Justice?
					

From Johnson's "War on Drugs" to Clinton's "Third Way," the criminalization of black bodies in the postwar era has been, until recently, a decidedly bipartisan affair.




					democracyjournal.org
				



What did Republicans do about furthering racial justice during the same period?


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was the dem party of Bill Clinton as "racist" as the party of the gop today? Or does you logic only apply sometimes?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know. Calls for personal "opinion" which, as IM2 has just pointed out (again), is of no value. Especially as in this case from a white guy (like me or you). However, with the tiniest bit of effort either of us could research the question and in a few minutes find plenty of "empirical" "evidence" decisively supporting one conclusion or another. But it appears you can't be bothered because you don't really care about obtaining an unbiased, fact based result.  You just shoot from the hip, fast and loose. That is why you fail.
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/41069676?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will Democrats Finally Align With Racial Justice?
> 
> 
> From Johnson's "War on Drugs" to Clinton's "Third Way," the criminalization of black bodies in the postwar era has been, until recently, a decidedly bipartisan affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democracyjournal.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did Republicans do about furthering racial justice during the same period?
Click to expand...

Blacks have stuck with democrats because they at least offer a few things that address our community. Clinton did a few things but he was a blue dog democrat and was a problem.


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


> he was a blue dog democrat and was a problem.


Believe me, I know that much. He's the one who turned me permanently Independent. I had a landscaping business at the time and listened to NPR on my Walkman most of the day while working. I recall smashing things on the ground and breaking several handles in disgust upon hearing of his latest betrayals. LOL


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was a blue dog democrat and was a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, I know that much. He's the one who turned me permanently Independent. I had a landscaping business at the time and listened to NPR on my Walkman most of the day while working. I recall smashing things on the ground and breaking several handles in disgust upon hearing of his latest betrayals. LOL
Click to expand...

No doubt. I felt that way a lot too. Then he cheated on his wife and made it worse. But I live in Kansas and could not vote for Dole. No way. He was from western Kansas and that side of the state still lives in the 1950's. Or earlier.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Dole's still kicking apparently. 96. Somehow seems rather tame now in retrospect.. But yeah, he would have been worse than Slick. He quipped "In politics honorable compromise is no sin. It is what protects us from absolutism and intolerance" which works just as well for promoting absolutism and intolerance when you think about it. Not real smart, but sounded good at the time, I'm sure. Bill, of course, then had to triangulate that to _In politics compromise is no sin. It is what_ _I do best and then some._


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
Click to expand...




Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".


Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist. 


What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal. 


Would you like to look at another example now?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
Click to expand...



Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:
> 
> 
> 
> ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face it. You're a very sick puppy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quibbling over details to avoid the meat of my argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You can't handle the truth is all.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me, based on a poll of how people view "blacks" if republicans respect or treat seriously blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, moron. The poll was about how the public views "Race in America 2019." Subtitled: "Public has negative views of the country’s racial progress; more than half say Trump has made race relations worse." It was NOT about "how people view blacks." You should avoid engaging in such discussions since you evidently don't (can't?) understand the difference.  I asked you:
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered. You are now trying to avoid addressing my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I addressed it and "You're a very sick puppy."
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, do you think that white American culture has problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Has COVID-19 increased the price of tea in China? Get a clue.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are these "assumptions" of mine? All in your head? If you could manage to provide some compelling evidence in support of them.. that could be refreshing. Also, define "white American culture"?
Click to expand...




Do you think that white American culture has any problems?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was the dem party of Bill Clinton as "racist" as the party of the gop today? Or does you logic only apply sometimes?
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know. Calls for personal "opinion" which, as IM2 has just pointed out (again), is of no value. Especially as in this case from a white guy (like me or you). However, with the tiniest bit of effort either of us could research the question and in a few minutes find plenty of "empirical" "evidence" decisively supporting one conclusion or another. But it appears you can't be bothered because you don't really care about obtaining an unbiased, fact based result.  You just shoot from the hip, fast and loose. That is why you fail, time and again.
> 
> 
> https://www.jstor.org/stable/41069676?seq=1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Will Democrats Finally Align With Racial Justice?
> 
> 
> From Johnson's "War on Drugs" to Clinton's "Third Way," the criminalization of black bodies in the postwar era has been, until recently, a decidedly bipartisan affair.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> democracyjournal.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What did Republicans do about furthering racial justice during the same period?
Click to expand...




Your refuse my request for your "personal opinion" because you want use "empirical evidence" instead.


But, when you look at a policy, it is your "personal opinion" to judge opposition to the policy to be evidence of racism.

You are being as "opinionated" as I am, you are just taking the additional step of cloaking your assumptions as "empirical" and "racial justice" to give you an excuse to dismiss people and ideas you don't like.


ALL you are doing, is coming up with an excuse to avoid defending your assumptions.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> he was a blue dog democrat and was a problem.
> 
> 
> 
> Believe me, I know that much. He's the one who turned me permanently Independent. I had a landscaping business at the time and listened to NPR on my Walkman most of the day while working. I recall smashing things on the ground and breaking several handles in disgust upon hearing of his latest betrayals. LOL
Click to expand...



Clinton was a master of triangulation. It was an especially dishonest strategy. It worked for him personally, because he was an "empty suit with an appetite", and no actual principles or real beliefs of his own, other than his personal advancement.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:
> 
> 
> 
> ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face it. You're a very sick puppy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quibbling over details to avoid the meat of my argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You can't handle the truth is all.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me, based on a poll of how people view "blacks" if republicans respect or treat seriously blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, moron. The poll was about how the public views "Race in America 2019." Subtitled: "Public has negative views of the country’s racial progress; more than half say Trump has made race relations worse." It was NOT about "how people view blacks." You should avoid engaging in such discussions since you evidently don't (can't?) understand the difference.  I asked you:
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered. You are now trying to avoid addressing my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I addressed it and "You're a very sick puppy."
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, do you think that white American culture has problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Has COVID-19 increased the price of tea in China? Get a clue.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are these "assumptions" of mine? All in your head? If you could manage to provide some compelling evidence in support of them.. that could be refreshing. Also, define "white American culture"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that white American culture has any problems?
Click to expand...

Define "white American culture"?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most white Democrats who say being black hurts a person’s ability to succeed point to racial discrimination (70%) and less access to good schools (75%) or high-paying jobs (64%) as major reasons for this (among black Democrats, the shares are 86%, 74% and 78%, respectively). By comparison, about a third or fewer white Republicans say these are major obstacles for blacks. White Republicans are more likely than white Democrats to cite family instability, lack of good role models and a lack of motivation to work hard.
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The last sentence listed three factors that white republicans are more likely to cite to explain black people's "inability to succeed", ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Your conversion there of "hurts a person’s ability to succeed" into 'black people's "inability to succeed"' was clearly deliberate and grossly disrespectful. Yet you'll continue to wonder why most people presume Republicans to be more racist than Democrats. Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mmmm, that is crazy talk. I did not challenge your premises because I wanted to address your point and move the discussion forward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Baloney. You misquoted "ability" as "inability" (to succeed), thereby completely changing the meaning of the poll question to fit your racist "cultural" narrative of literally "blaming" anything the black minority does on the historically marginalized black minority itself:
> 
> 
> 
> ie "family instability, lack of good role models, and a lack of motivation to work hard".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Face it. You're a very sick puppy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are quibbling over details to avoid the meat of my argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. You can't handle the truth is all.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked me, based on a poll of how people view "blacks" if republicans respect or treat seriously blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, moron. The poll was about how the public views "Race in America 2019." Subtitled: "Public has negative views of the country’s racial progress; more than half say Trump has made race relations worse." It was NOT about "how people view blacks." You should avoid engaging in such discussions since you evidently don't (can't?) understand the difference.  I asked you:
> 
> 
> 
> Just from that last sentence, do you think most Republicans take blacks seriously? Treat them with respect? Compared to most Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I answered. You are now trying to avoid addressing my answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I addressed it and "You're a very sick puppy."
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, do you think that white American culture has problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Does the Pope wear a funny hat? Has COVID-19 increased the price of tea in China? Get a clue.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do not take the fact that I answered his question with any acceptance of his assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What are these "assumptions" of mine? All in your head? If you could manage to provide some compelling evidence in support of them.. that could be refreshing. Also, define "white American culture"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that white American culture has any problems?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "white American culture"?
Click to expand...



Dude. Don't be silly.


Do you think that white American culture has any problems?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Your phrase. Not one I would ever use. Define "white American culture"..


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Your phrase. Not one I would ever use. Define "white American culture"..




Never mind. It was a reference to the way you freaked out, because I mentioned a problem in black culture, as though discussing a problem in a culture was being racist against that culture.


I was going to make the obvious point, that ALL cultures have problems, and discussing a problem of a culture is in no way "Racist".


But, you were such effectively evasive and made it impossible to discuss it.

Congratulations. You avoided discussion. Good job.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Hey, eat a bag of dicks.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Hey, eat a bag of dicks.




I asked you, if you thought American white culture had any problems, and you were afraid to answer.


Seriously. This is not where you insult me, this is where you realize that you are the one being dishonest.


You are being so dishonest, that you were afraid to admit that white culture in this country has any problems.


Dude. Wake the fuck up.


----------



## Grumblenuts

And I asked you:


Grumblenuts said:


> Your phrase. Not one I would ever use. Define "white American culture"..


Then you said:


Correll said:


> Never mind.


Couldn't do it. 


Correll said:


> I mentioned a problem in black culture, as though


some white "Dude" who can't even define their own phrase "white American culture" had any business talking about "black culture."


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> And I asked you:
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your phrase. Not one I would ever use. Define "white American culture"..
> 
> 
> 
> Then you said:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Couldn't do it.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I mentioned a problem in black culture, as though
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some white "Dude" who can't even define their own phrase "white American culture" had any business talking about "black culture."
Click to expand...



I asked a simple question. Do you believe that white American culture has a problem.

You could have answered it. Obviously, all cultures have problems.


BUt you are so set on being evasive and dishonest, that you refused to answer.


That reflects your mindset, with ALL OF YOUR RESPONSES IN THIS THREAD.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Obviously, all cultures have problems.


As in "Does the Pope wear a funny hat?"
Moron.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, all cultures have problems.
> 
> 
> 
> As in "Does the Pope wear a funny hat?"
> Moron.
Click to expand...



And yet, you could not answer it. 

Because you were too busy being evasive and dishonest.


Because that is the mindset you have with this whole thread/issue.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, all cultures have problems.
> 
> 
> 
> As in "Does the Pope wear a funny hat?"
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you could not answer it.
> 
> Because you were too busy being evasive and dishonest.
> 
> 
> Because that is the mindset you have with this whole thread/issue.
Click to expand...

_Little hint: "Does the Pope wear a funny hat?" = "Obviously, all cultures have problems."
Dope._


----------



## IM2

The white person here is speaking on the black community that faces a factor he doesn't and then tries claiming that we have a problem based on his never facing the main problem we face. He needs to shut his white racist mouth.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".
> 
> 
> Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.
> 
> 
> What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
Click to expand...

I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
Click to expand...

I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.


----------



## IM2

The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.


----------



## Faun

IM2 said:


> The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.


And then that idiot blames the media for reporting on the ever growing line of woman accusing Cain of sexual harassment.


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.
> 
> 
> 
> And then that idiot blames the media for reporting on the ever growing line of woman accusing Cain of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...

That line of women first reported by the Rick Perry campaign. You know, the guy with the ranch called the n word.


----------



## Faun

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.
> 
> 
> 
> And then that idiot blames the media for reporting on the ever growing line of woman accusing Cain of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That line of women first reported by the Rick Perry campaign. You know, the guy with the ranch called the n word.
Click to expand...

Now, now, you're being unfair to that white guy. It was the media's fault because they reported on it.


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.
> 
> 
> 
> And then that idiot blames the media for reporting on the ever growing line of woman accusing Cain of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That line of women first reported by the Rick Perry campaign. You know, the guy with the ranch called the n word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, now, you're being unfair to that white guy. It was the media's fault because they reported on it.
Click to expand...







OOPS!


----------



## Grumblenuts

The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously, all cultures have problems.
> 
> 
> 
> As in "Does the Pope wear a funny hat?"
> Moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And yet, you could not answer it.
> 
> Because you were too busy being evasive and dishonest.
> 
> 
> Because that is the mindset you have with this whole thread/issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Little hint: "Does the Pope wear a funny hat?" = "Obviously, all cultures have problems."
> Dope._
Click to expand...




You could not answer it when I asked it, or for the next two or three tries. 

D'uh. 


That is just your brain continuing to be stuck on "Evasive and dishonest".


It was a minor point I was trying to make. And instead of letting me make it, and replying to it, you had to play stupid and dishonest games to avoid dealing with it.


Not because that little point was so dangerous, but because your entire position in this thread, is based on being evasive and dishonest.


Because your position is an absurd fantasy, where instead of a partisan hack who has strong political disagreements with people and is a troll about them,

you pretend to be a Hero, fighting against the Evul Wacists.


You can't admit that the GOP supported Powell back in 96, because that robs you of your fantasy of being a hero fighting evul wacist supervillains.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> The white person here is speaking on the black community that faces a factor he doesn't and then tries claiming that we have a problem based on his never facing the main problem we face. He needs to shut his white racist mouth.




i didn't bring it up. I was happy talking about Colin Powell and Herman Cain. 


Your lib buddy brought it up to make a point. I responded to his point. That is the way discussions work.


What was I supposed  to do? Refuse to give my opinion because of my skin color?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".
> 
> 
> Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.
> 
> 
> What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?
Click to expand...



There you lied, pretending to misunderstand my point about "white candidate" to mean "white candidates".


You have to be dishonest and evasive to hold on to your fantasy of being a brave warrior fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.



Herman Cain had nearly TWICE the level of support of the next strongest candidate, among one of the more conservative factions of the republican party. 


That right there, is very strong evidence undermining your position.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
Click to expand...



His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.




That is not the question being discussed. THe claim has been made that the reason for the lack of republican presidents is republican racism.


The strong support that Cain had at that time, who is black you know, based primarily among the MORE conservative factions of the republican party, is strong evidence that that is false.


It is not credible that you needed that explained. It is a simple point.


YOu are being evasive to avoid the point, because you know it is true, and you can't admit it.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.
> 
> 
> 
> And then that idiot blames the media for reporting on the ever growing line of woman accusing Cain of sexual harassment.
Click to expand...



NOt really the topic. The point is that it was not reports of his skin color that undermined his support.


Did you forget what your position was? About Evul Republican Wacism?


Or you just trying to deflect from the fact that I have proved you wrong?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.
> 
> 
> 
> And then that idiot blames the media for reporting on the ever growing line of woman accusing Cain of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That line of women first reported by the Rick Perry campaign. You know, the guy with the ranch called the n word.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now, now, you're being unfair to that white guy. It was the media's fault because they reported on it.
Click to expand...



Dude. I'm always happy to talk about the media. But you are trying to derail this thread, because you know that you have lost the debate.


Your position of Evul Republican Wacism, has been refuted.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..




And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them. 


The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.

BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him. 


Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





> Seven major candidates were in the race to become the nominee. Michele Bachmann was the first to drop out, ending her campaign after a poor performance in Iowa. Jon Huntsman withdrew from the race after placing third in the New Hampshire primary. Rick Perry dropped out after Iowa and New Hampshire but prior to the South Carolina primary after polling poorly. Rick Santorum suspended his campaign in April after polls showed a strong possibility that he would lose his home state of Pennsylvania to Mitt Romney, and his daughter Bella's condition worsened. Newt Gingrich withdrew after insufficient funds prevented him from moving forward with a strong campaign. On May 14, 2012, Ron Paul announced that his campaign would switch to a delegate accumulation strategy.[3] On May 29, according to projected counts, Mitt Romney crossed the threshold of 1,144 delegates. He was formally nominated at the Republican National Convention on August 28.


Not much Cain, innit?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seven major candidates were in the race to become the nominee. Michele Bachmann was the first to drop out, ending her campaign after a poor performance in Iowa. Jon Huntsman withdrew from the race after placing third in the New Hampshire primary. Rick Perry dropped out after Iowa and New Hampshire but prior to the South Carolina primary after polling poorly. Rick Santorum suspended his campaign in April after polls showed a strong possibility that he would lose his home state of Pennsylvania to Mitt Romney, and his daughter Bella's condition worsened. Newt Gingrich withdrew after insufficient funds prevented him from moving forward with a strong campaign. On May 14, 2012, Ron Paul announced that his campaign would switch to a delegate accumulation strategy.[3] On May 29, according to projected counts, Mitt Romney crossed the threshold of 1,144 delegates. He was formally nominated at the Republican National Convention on August 28.
> 
> 
> 
> Not much Cain, innit?
Click to expand...


Seems odd. He was the front runner for a while. Perhaps the person that wrote that, is some lefty like you, that can't accept that he was a major contender.

After all, Evul Wacist supervillains.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Perhaps looking at a single poll of only Tea Party members held way back in October of the prior year doesn't add up to a hill of beans.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Seems odd. He was the front runner for a while.


Oh? When was that?


----------



## Grumblenuts

> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.


And that was it for Cain.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".
> 
> 
> Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.
> 
> 
> What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you lied, pretending to misunderstand my point about "white candidate" to mean "white candidates".
> 
> 
> You have to be dishonest and evasive to hold on to your fantasy of being a brave warrior fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain had nearly TWICE the level of support of the next strongest candidate, among one of the more conservative factions of the republican party.
> 
> 
> That right there, is very strong evidence undermining your position.
Click to expand...

There's no lie and you still possess as much evidence as before, which is none, that Cain would have sustained that lead.

And again, according to you, even though we're far out from the general election, Impeached Trump has no chance against Biden because most of the latest polls favor Biden. Just like Impeached Trump didn't stand a chance against Hillary 4 years ago .


----------



## IM2

If Cain would have sustained that lead he would have done so. He didn't. He did not get nominated. He has had the chance to run in 2016 and did not. Correll has no argument to give on this. Cain ran for president in the republican party and did not get nominated. There is no if, ands or buts. He did not get the nomination. What if doesn't apply here, because he ran and he lost.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> that lead





IM2 said:


> that lead


Most he can be credited with is momentarily becoming "one of the front runners in the Republican primaries."


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Perhaps looking at a single poll of only Tea Party members held way back in October of the prior year doesn't add up to a hill of beans.




Which of course, is not what I am doing. It is just that you guys have to stone wall on every little factoid, to maintain your fantasy of Evul Wacists Supervillains.

IN a sane world, you would have said something like, "ok, that is interesting, I did not know that, but by itself it is not enough",

and then we would have moved on to another example.


But, at the end of that, you would have to admit that your fantasy of being a hero fighting Evul Wacist Supervillains, 


was just a little game you liked to play, to make yourself feel good about yourself.


So, you stonewall.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Alternatively, it could just be you doing the fantasizing.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> on to another example.


Example of what exactly? For mercy's sake, just spit it out already..


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.
Click to expand...

His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that Cain did not get the nomination. There are no if's or and's to be had about it.
> 
> 
> 
> And then that idiot blames the media for reporting on the ever growing line of woman accusing Cain of sexual harassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOt really the topic. The point is that it was not reports of his skin color that undermined his support.
> 
> 
> Did you forget what your position was? About Evul Republican Wacism?
> 
> 
> Or you just trying to deflect from the fact that I have proved you wrong?
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You can't say shit unrelated to the topic and then hide behind it being off topic when called out on it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.


----------



## Faun

Grumblenuts said:


> Perhaps looking at a single poll of only Tea Party members held way back in October of the prior year doesn't add up to a hill of beans.


Bingo!


----------



## Faun

Grumblenuts said:


> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
Click to expand...

And the reason Cain couldn't weather the storm is because he's black and Republicans hold blacks to a higher standard than whites. That's why Impeached Trump, who committed more and far worse offenses against women was given a pass by the same GOP just 4 years later.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps looking at a single poll of only Tea Party members held way back in October of the prior year doesn't add up to a hill of beans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which of course, is not what I am doing. It is just that you guys have to stone wall on every little factoid, to maintain your fantasy of Evul Wacists Supervillains.
> 
> IN a sane world, you would have said something like, "ok, that is interesting, I did not know that, but by itself it is not enough",
> 
> and then we would have moved on to another example.
> 
> 
> But, at the end of that, you would have to admit that your fantasy of being a hero fighting Evul Wacist Supervillains,
> 
> 
> was just a little game you liked to play, to make yourself feel good about yourself.
> 
> 
> So, you stonewall.
Click to expand...

"Which of course, is not what I am doing."

Liar.

That's exactly what you're doing. You posted a CBS/NYT poll of Republican TEA party supporters...


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
Click to expand...


Just as a casual observer, all the media did was to report the news  about Cains womanizing. 
They could not have suppressed it. 

His party could have chosen to stand behind him.


He was not a "victim" of the media. Their job is only to report.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> View attachment 317901


Nice graph! Interesting. So Cain apparently did have a moment in the Sun after all. Mea culpa.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Perhaps looking at a single poll of only Tea Party members held way back in October of the prior year doesn't add up to a hill of beans.




It does if the question is, "is Evul Wacism, the reason for the lack of republican blacks presidents?".


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems odd. He was the front runner for a while.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh? When was that?
Click to expand...


Not sure exactly when it happened. But it did.









						New Poll Shows Herman Cain as Frontrunner - The New American
					

Rick Perry has fallen from his position as leading contender for the GOP nomination, and former Godfather Pizza CEO Herman Cain has emerged as a new top tier candidate. by Raven Clabough




					www.thenewamerican.com
				





"According to that poll, by the _Wall Street Journal_/NBC News, Cain now has 27 percent of Republican primary voters, while Romney is supported by 23 percent of Republican primary voters. Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in that poll to receive double digit approval, with 11 percent. "


And again, in a world where you libs insist on the republicans, especially conservatives republicans being Evul Wacists, it is worth noting, that his base was among the right wing(s) of the party.

"The poll indicates that Cain is particularly popular among Tea Party supporters, with whom he has 69 percent favorability. Just 5 percent of Tea Partiers give Cain an unfavorable rating, according to that poll. Among those respondents who labeled themselves as “very conservative,”  his score is even higher, 72 to 2. "


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
Click to expand...



Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media. 

Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Yes. Very sad.


For those sexually harassed women? Definitely.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".
> 
> 
> Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.
> 
> 
> What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you lied, pretending to misunderstand my point about "white candidate" to mean "white candidates".
> 
> 
> You have to be dishonest and evasive to hold on to your fantasy of being a brave warrior fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain had nearly TWICE the level of support of the next strongest candidate, among one of the more conservative factions of the republican party.
> 
> 
> That right there, is very strong evidence undermining your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no lie and you still possess as much evidence as before, which is none, that Cain would have sustained that lead.
> 
> And again, according to you, even though we're far out from the general election, Impeached Trump has no chance against Biden because most of the latest polls favor Biden. Just like Impeached Trump didn't stand a chance against Hillary 4 years ago .
Click to expand...




YOur refusal to address my point is noted. The reason is obvious. Because you know that you cannot refute it.


The claim has been made that Evul Racism is the cause of the lack of republican black presidents.


The support shown to past black republican candidates, shows that the republican voters is not the Evul Wacists, that you hard core lefties like to pretend they are.


That is what this thread is really about, and I have refuted it. Your stonewalling is just showing everyone how dishonest you are.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> If Cain would have sustained that lead he would have done so. He didn't. He did not get nominated. He has had the chance to run in 2016 and did not. Correll has no argument to give on this. Cain ran for president in the republican party and did not get nominated. There is no if, ands or buts. He did not get the nomination. What if doesn't apply here, because he ran and he lost.




The point of this thread, is to make the case that the reason for the lack of black republican presidents is Evul Wacism.


THe strong support shown to various black candidates in the past,  refutes that silly belief.


----------



## Grumblenuts

He'll catch up eventually...


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Alternatively, it could just be you doing the fantasizing.




I'm not the one trying to explain away polls and historical facts, to support my negative opinion of enemies.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad.
> 
> 
> 
> For those sexually harassed women? Definitely.
Click to expand...



Irrelevant to the point of the thread. Which is way you are trying so hard to change the subject.


Because I have shown that your delusions of Evul Wacism, is self serving nonsense.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> on to another example.
> 
> 
> 
> Example of what exactly? For mercy's sake, just spit it out already..
Click to expand...



Maybe if you did not cut nearly everything from my post, you would know the answer.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.
> 
> View attachment 317901
Click to expand...




I am not just looking at the subset. I posted both the total numbers and the breakdown. (And it was more than half a point. )

BUT, it is relevant in a world where you liberals like to pretend that conservatives are all Evul Wacists,

that Cain's base was among conservatives.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...

"Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
Click to expand...




"According to that poll, by the _Wall Street Journal_/NBC News, Cain now has 27 percent of Republican primary voters, while Romney is supported by 23 percent of Republican primary voters. Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in that poll to receive double digit approval, with 11 percent. "



Your need to minimize Cain and his campaign is fairly sad. 


He was the frontrunner, despite your desire to believe that people you hate, are all Evul Wacists.


The republican voters of the past, did not act as your belief system would expect. 


Because your world view is delusional nonsense.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
Click to expand...

Liar.

You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
> 
> "Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
> 
> View attachment 317988




Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed. 


You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".
> 
> 
> Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.
> 
> 
> What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you lied, pretending to misunderstand my point about "white candidate" to mean "white candidates".
> 
> 
> You have to be dishonest and evasive to hold on to your fantasy of being a brave warrior fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain had nearly TWICE the level of support of the next strongest candidate, among one of the more conservative factions of the republican party.
> 
> 
> That right there, is very strong evidence undermining your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no lie and you still possess as much evidence as before, which is none, that Cain would have sustained that lead.
> 
> And again, according to you, even though we're far out from the general election, Impeached Trump has no chance against Biden because most of the latest polls favor Biden. Just like Impeached Trump didn't stand a chance against Hillary 4 years ago .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur refusal to address my point is noted. The reason is obvious. Because you know that you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> The claim has been made that Evul Racism is the cause of the lack of republican black presidents.
> 
> 
> The support shown to past black republican candidates, shows that the republican voters is not the Evul Wacists, that you hard core lefties like to pretend they are.
> 
> 
> That is what this thread is really about, and I have refuted it. Your stonewalling is just showing everyone how dishonest you are.
Click to expand...

LOL

Your point is DOA. You're literally pointing to a black man who never received more than about a quarter of the GOP's support and then idiotically proclaimed that proof the GOP isn't too racist to nominate a black person.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
> 
> "Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
> 
> View attachment 317988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed.
> 
> 
> You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.
Click to expand...

^^ Self projection ^^

Now back to a Buchanan supporter claiming he would have voted for Colin Powell in 96...

Why did you avoid the fact that Colin Powell's stated policies then and his political beliefs now were and are NOWHERE near Buchanan.....who was about as racist as you dic sucking republicans could get away with at that time....

I don't believe shit a closet racist tells me about what "he would have done" -- I just pay attention to the shit you freely say and do now


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
Click to expand...



1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.

2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".
> 
> 
> Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.
> 
> 
> What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you lied, pretending to misunderstand my point about "white candidate" to mean "white candidates".
> 
> 
> You have to be dishonest and evasive to hold on to your fantasy of being a brave warrior fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain had nearly TWICE the level of support of the next strongest candidate, among one of the more conservative factions of the republican party.
> 
> 
> That right there, is very strong evidence undermining your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no lie and you still possess as much evidence as before, which is none, that Cain would have sustained that lead.
> 
> And again, according to you, even though we're far out from the general election, Impeached Trump has no chance against Biden because most of the latest polls favor Biden. Just like Impeached Trump didn't stand a chance against Hillary 4 years ago .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur refusal to address my point is noted. The reason is obvious. Because you know that you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> The claim has been made that Evul Racism is the cause of the lack of republican black presidents.
> 
> 
> The support shown to past black republican candidates, shows that the republican voters is not the Evul Wacists, that you hard core lefties like to pretend they are.
> 
> 
> That is what this thread is really about, and I have refuted it. Your stonewalling is just showing everyone how dishonest you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You're literally pointing to a black man who never received more than about a quarter of the GOP's support and then idiotically proclaimed that proof the GOP isn't too racist to nominate a black person.
Click to expand...



Said the man that is also dismissing the exit polls showing the Republican POwell winning a majority of the votes vs Bill Clinton. 


NO matter what the evidence, you hold to your Blind Faith in the Evul Wacism of your ememies.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.
> 
> View attachment 317901
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not just looking at the subset. I posted both the total numbers and the breakdown. (And it was more than half a point. )
> 
> BUT, it is relevant in a world where you liberals like to pretend that conservatives are all Evul Wacists,
> 
> that Cain's base was among conservatives.
Click to expand...

The total numbers gave Cain a 4 point lead and showed 25% support. But again, that was just one poll. In some others, Romney was on top. On average, Cain's lead was half of one percent.

So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "According to that poll, by the _Wall Street Journal_/NBC News, Cain now has 27 percent of Republican primary voters, while Romney is supported by 23 percent of Republican primary voters. Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in that poll to receive double digit approval, with 11 percent. "
> 
> 
> 
> Your need to minimize Cain and his campaign is fairly sad.
> 
> 
> He was the frontrunner, despite your desire to believe that people you hate, are all Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> The republican voters of the past, did not act as your belief system would expect.
> 
> 
> Because your world view is delusional nonsense.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

I don't have to minimize Cain -- you're doing that by showing he never garnered more than about ¼ of GOP support.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
> 
> "Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
> 
> View attachment 317988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed.
> 
> 
> You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Self projection ^^
> 
> Now back to a Buchanan supporter claiming he would have voted for Colin Powell in 96...
> 
> Why did you avoid the fact that Colin Powell's stated policies then and his political beliefs now were and are NOWHERE near Buchanan.....who was about as racist as you dic sucking republicans could get away with at that time....
> 
> I don't believe shit a closet racist tells me about what "he would have done" -- I just pay attention to the shit you freely say and do now
Click to expand...





YOu really dont' think a hard core straight party ticker voter, a partisan Republican since he was registered to vote, 


would not have voted for a fucking potted plant if that plant was running against Bill Fucking Clinton?

YOur denial of my partisan support for WHO EVER the party picked, is not credible. 


YOu are just saying whatever shit you have to say, so you can still pretend that you are a Hero fighting Evul Wacists.



i fucking voted for John Fucking MCCAIN, when he won the nomination. So you can shove your shit back up your ass, where you pulled it from. 

And then go suck some dicks your self, faggot.


----------



## Faun

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
> 
> "Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
> 
> View attachment 317988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed.
> 
> 
> You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Self projection ^^
> 
> Now back to a Buchanan supporter claiming he would have voted for Colin Powell in 96...
> 
> Why did you avoid the fact that Colin Powell's stated policies then and his political beliefs now were and are NOWHERE near Buchanan.....who was about as racist as you dic sucking republicans could get away with at that time....
> 
> I don't believe shit a closet racist tells me about what "he would have done" -- I just pay attention to the shit you freely say and do now
Click to expand...

Correll proves what I said earlier about how there are people who say they would vote for a black candidate but when actually filling out a ballot, never would. That's another reason the exit poll he was referencing earlier is meaningless.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
Click to expand...

It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.

At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good. 

Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.

But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.

Bully for you.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.
> 
> View attachment 317901
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not just looking at the subset. I posted both the total numbers and the breakdown. (And it was more than half a point. )
> 
> BUT, it is relevant in a world where you liberals like to pretend that conservatives are all Evul Wacists,
> 
> that Cain's base was among conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The total numbers gave Cain a 4 point lead and showed 25% support. But again, that was just one poll. In some others, Romney was on top. On average, Cain's lead was half of one percent.
> 
> So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
Click to expand...


If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.

Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.


Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "According to that poll, by the _Wall Street Journal_/NBC News, Cain now has 27 percent of Republican primary voters, while Romney is supported by 23 percent of Republican primary voters. Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in that poll to receive double digit approval, with 11 percent. "
> 
> 
> 
> Your need to minimize Cain and his campaign is fairly sad.
> 
> 
> He was the frontrunner, despite your desire to believe that people you hate, are all Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> The republican voters of the past, did not act as your belief system would expect.
> 
> 
> Because your world view is delusional nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> I don't have to minimize Cain -- you're doing that by showing he never garnered more than about ¼ of GOP support.
Click to expand...



There is nothing minimal about achieving front runner status. That is a major achievement and, in the context of this thread and it's point, ie claiming Evul Wacism,


it is strong evidence.


YOur denial of this, is not credible


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Everyday for the past couple of weeks, Cory L wakes up in the morning and tells himself in the mirror...
> 
> "Today, I won't get destroyed on this post..AGAIN....I promise!!!"
> 
> View attachment 317988
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff, your belief system of your enemies being Evul Wacist Supervillains, is what has been destroyed.
> 
> 
> You are not a Hero fighting against Evul Wacists, just a partisan hack who hates people who disagree with him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^ Self projection ^^
> 
> Now back to a Buchanan supporter claiming he would have voted for Colin Powell in 96...
> 
> Why did you avoid the fact that Colin Powell's stated policies then and his political beliefs now were and are NOWHERE near Buchanan.....who was about as racist as you dic sucking republicans could get away with at that time....
> 
> I don't believe shit a closet racist tells me about what "he would have done" -- I just pay attention to the shit you freely say and do now
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correll proves what I said earlier about how there are people who say they would vote for a black candidate but when actually filling out a ballot, never would. That's another reason the exit poll he was referencing earlier is meaningless.
Click to expand...



You are openly stating that your mind is closed to outside information, because you just "know" that people you hate, and oppose, have to be Evul Wacist, just because.


YOu are a partisan hack. 


Your delusion of Evul Wacism, is just an excuse for you.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
Click to expand...




Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender. 


IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.


You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".
> 
> 
> Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.
> 
> 
> What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you lied, pretending to misunderstand my point about "white candidate" to mean "white candidates".
> 
> 
> You have to be dishonest and evasive to hold on to your fantasy of being a brave warrior fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain had nearly TWICE the level of support of the next strongest candidate, among one of the more conservative factions of the republican party.
> 
> 
> That right there, is very strong evidence undermining your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no lie and you still possess as much evidence as before, which is none, that Cain would have sustained that lead.
> 
> And again, according to you, even though we're far out from the general election, Impeached Trump has no chance against Biden because most of the latest polls favor Biden. Just like Impeached Trump didn't stand a chance against Hillary 4 years ago .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur refusal to address my point is noted. The reason is obvious. Because you know that you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> The claim has been made that Evul Racism is the cause of the lack of republican black presidents.
> 
> 
> The support shown to past black republican candidates, shows that the republican voters is not the Evul Wacists, that you hard core lefties like to pretend they are.
> 
> 
> That is what this thread is really about, and I have refuted it. Your stonewalling is just showing everyone how dishonest you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You're literally pointing to a black man who never received more than about a quarter of the GOP's support and then idiotically proclaimed that proof the GOP isn't too racist to nominate a black person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that is also dismissing the exit polls showing the Republican POwell winning a majority of the votes vs Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> NO matter what the evidence, you hold to your Blind Faith in the Evul Wacism of your ememies.
Click to expand...

I dismissed them because they didn't show what you claimed. You claimed it showed GOP support when it couldn't have since the question about Powell wasn't broken down by political party. It was broken down by candidate. On top of that, it showed he would have gotten less support (68%) than Dole got from Dole supporters. And most of the support for Powell in that poll came at Clinton's expense, dropping the incumbent president's support from the 49% he actually earned in the election to 36% he might have gotten in a hypothetical race against Powell.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.


Um, ¼ were perhaps capable of at least suspending their racism for a short period of time?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 316403
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So 32% wanted supported the black candidate while 60% supported a white candidate.
> 
> What point are you trying to make here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don't recall. Perhaps something about how the more conservative republicans were happy to support the black guy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And "more" still being about half of those who supported a white candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that you don't know what it means to be a front runner, in a big field of candidates, is dismissed.
> 
> 
> Cain was the guy with the most support. If the voting had been held on that day, he would have won and been the candidate.
> 
> 
> So, the lie that republicans would not nominate a black candidate because of Evul Wacism, is refuted, right there.
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, "big field of candidates" dwindle down quickly once the primaries begin. You possess a grand total of zero evidence Cain would have prevailed. The best you could find was 60% were saying they would vote for a white candidate  snc another 8% said they hadn't decided yet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your position is based on the false pretense that every other candidate is a single entity, ie "white candidate".
> 
> 
> Cain was the one wining at that point in time. He was winning the gop primary, a fact that refutes your belief that the gop is soooo evully wacist.
> 
> 
> What took him down, was not the shocking news to the gop voters, that he was suddenly found out to be blacks, but a ginned up media scandal.
> 
> 
> Would you like to look at another example now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I assumed nothing. Which of these other candidates wasn't white...?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There you lied, pretending to misunderstand my point about "white candidate" to mean "white candidates".
> 
> 
> You have to be dishonest and evasive to hold on to your fantasy of being a brave warrior fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain had nearly TWICE the level of support of the next strongest candidate, among one of the more conservative factions of the republican party.
> 
> 
> That right there, is very strong evidence undermining your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no lie and you still possess as much evidence as before, which is none, that Cain would have sustained that lead.
> 
> And again, according to you, even though we're far out from the general election, Impeached Trump has no chance against Biden because most of the latest polls favor Biden. Just like Impeached Trump didn't stand a chance against Hillary 4 years ago .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YOur refusal to address my point is noted. The reason is obvious. Because you know that you cannot refute it.
> 
> 
> The claim has been made that Evul Racism is the cause of the lack of republican black presidents.
> 
> 
> The support shown to past black republican candidates, shows that the republican voters is not the Evul Wacists, that you hard core lefties like to pretend they are.
> 
> 
> That is what this thread is really about, and I have refuted it. Your stonewalling is just showing everyone how dishonest you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your point is DOA. You're literally pointing to a black man who never received more than about a quarter of the GOP's support and then idiotically proclaimed that proof the GOP isn't too racist to nominate a black person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that is also dismissing the exit polls showing the Republican POwell winning a majority of the votes vs Bill Clinton.
> 
> 
> NO matter what the evidence, you hold to your Blind Faith in the Evul Wacism of your ememies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I dismissed them because they didn't show what you claimed. You claimed it showed GOP support when it couldn't have since the question about Powell wasn't broken down by political party. It was broken down by candidate. On top of that, it showed he would have gotten less support (68%) than Dole got from Dole supporters. And most of the support for Powell in that poll came at Clinton's expense, dropping the incumbent president's support from the 49% he actually earned in the election to 36% he might have gotten in a hypothetical race against Powell.
Click to expand...


So, if Clinton got the 36% of the vote, that was mostly from the Dems, then for Powell to get a solid majority, h had to get nearly all of the gop votes, a lot of the independents AND a good chunk of the REagan Democrats.


Proving that your myth of Evul Wacism, is just that, A myth.


It is telling that the news that hte nation as a whole and the gop specifically, is far less racist than you thought,


gets strong pushback from you libs, not warm and joyous acceptance.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.
> 
> View attachment 317901
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not just looking at the subset. I posted both the total numbers and the breakdown. (And it was more than half a point. )
> 
> BUT, it is relevant in a world where you liberals like to pretend that conservatives are all Evul Wacists,
> 
> that Cain's base was among conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The total numbers gave Cain a 4 point lead and showed 25% support. But again, that was just one poll. In some others, Romney was on top. On average, Cain's lead was half of one percent.
> 
> So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.
> 
> Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.
> 
> 
> Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.
Click to expand...

Liar, that exit poll showed the most of the support for Powell came from Clinton's camp.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Um, ¼ were perhaps capable of at least suspending their racism for a short period of time?
Click to expand...



YOu are not a hero, fighting Evul Wacists.


You are just a partisan hack, trying to hold on to a reason to feel superior to your enemies.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.
> 
> View attachment 317901
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not just looking at the subset. I posted both the total numbers and the breakdown. (And it was more than half a point. )
> 
> BUT, it is relevant in a world where you liberals like to pretend that conservatives are all Evul Wacists,
> 
> that Cain's base was among conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The total numbers gave Cain a 4 point lead and showed 25% support. But again, that was just one poll. In some others, Romney was on top. On average, Cain's lead was half of one percent.
> 
> So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.
> 
> Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.
> 
> 
> Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, that exit poll showed the most of the support for Powell came from Clinton's camp.
Click to expand...



No, it did not.

YOur strong emotional commitment to your dream, is warping your thinking. 


Please try to explain how you reach that conclusion.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "According to that poll, by the _Wall Street Journal_/NBC News, Cain now has 27 percent of Republican primary voters, while Romney is supported by 23 percent of Republican primary voters. Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in that poll to receive double digit approval, with 11 percent. "
> 
> 
> 
> Your need to minimize Cain and his campaign is fairly sad.
> 
> 
> He was the frontrunner, despite your desire to believe that people you hate, are all Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> The republican voters of the past, did not act as your belief system would expect.
> 
> 
> Because your world view is delusional nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> I don't have to minimize Cain -- you're doing that by showing he never garnered more than about ¼ of GOP support.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing minimal about achieving front runner status. That is a major achievement and, in the context of this thread and it's point, ie claiming Evul Wacism,
> 
> 
> it is strong evidence.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of this, is not credible
Click to expand...

Yes, it's strong evidence that at least ¼ of GOP voters would have likely voted for him.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....

I will break the news to Diamond & Silk


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "According to that poll, by the _Wall Street Journal_/NBC News, Cain now has 27 percent of Republican primary voters, while Romney is supported by 23 percent of Republican primary voters. Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in that poll to receive double digit approval, with 11 percent. "
> 
> 
> 
> Your need to minimize Cain and his campaign is fairly sad.
> 
> 
> He was the frontrunner, despite your desire to believe that people you hate, are all Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> The republican voters of the past, did not act as your belief system would expect.
> 
> 
> Because your world view is delusional nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> I don't have to minimize Cain -- you're doing that by showing he never garnered more than about ¼ of GOP support.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing minimal about achieving front runner status. That is a major achievement and, in the context of this thread and it's point, ie claiming Evul Wacism,
> 
> 
> it is strong evidence.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of this, is not credible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it's strong evidence that at least ¼ of GOP voters would have likely voted for him.
Click to expand...



It is strong evidence that Evul Wacism, is not a significant factor in the GOP voters.


As you well know.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
Click to expand...

No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk





The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates, 


but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.


That is the point I have addressed and refuted.

Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.


THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.


Evul Wacists? LOL!!!


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
Click to expand...




And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.


That is the point.


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "According to that poll, by the _Wall Street Journal_/NBC News, Cain now has 27 percent of Republican primary voters, while Romney is supported by 23 percent of Republican primary voters. Rep. Ron Paul was the only other candidate in that poll to receive double digit approval, with 11 percent. "
> 
> 
> 
> Your need to minimize Cain and his campaign is fairly sad.
> 
> 
> He was the frontrunner, despite your desire to believe that people you hate, are all Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> The republican voters of the past, did not act as your belief system would expect.
> 
> 
> Because your world view is delusional nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> I don't have to minimize Cain -- you're doing that by showing he never garnered more than about ¼ of GOP support.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing minimal about achieving front runner status. That is a major achievement and, in the context of this thread and it's point, ie claiming Evul Wacism,
> 
> 
> it is strong evidence.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of this, is not credible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, it's strong evidence that at least ¼ of GOP voters would have likely voted for him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is strong evidence that Evul Wacism, is not a significant factor in the GOP voters.
> 
> 
> As you well know.
Click to expand...

LOLOL


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
Click to expand...

_*"That is the point I have addressed and refuted."*_


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
Click to expand...

I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...

you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....

But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.
> 
> View attachment 317901
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not just looking at the subset. I posted both the total numbers and the breakdown. (And it was more than half a point. )
> 
> BUT, it is relevant in a world where you liberals like to pretend that conservatives are all Evul Wacists,
> 
> that Cain's base was among conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The total numbers gave Cain a 4 point lead and showed 25% support. But again, that was just one poll. In some others, Romney was on top. On average, Cain's lead was half of one percent.
> 
> So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.
> 
> Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.
> 
> 
> Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, that exit poll showed the most of the support for Powell came from Clinton's camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.
> 
> YOur strong emotional commitment to your dream, is warping your thinking.
> 
> 
> Please try to explain how you reach that conclusion.
Click to expand...

Clinton won the actual election with 49% of the vote. Dole, the Republican, pulled in 41%.

In a hypothetical race with Powell, the Republican got 48% support. 7 points more than Dole. Where did it come from? Most of it came from Clinton's support which dropped from 49% to 36%.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Why on Earth would I want to give up making a fool of you and your ¼ GOP support for a black candidate??


----------



## Faun

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
Click to expand...

He's literally pointing at two blacks *who were never nominated by the GOP* as evidence the GOP would nominate a black person.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
Click to expand...

The original crickets are long dead.  The next generation as well.  However, the current generation remains chirping away in anticipation..


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
Click to expand...


Cain was. 


Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
Click to expand...




His later betrayal, is irrelevant to the thread topic.


BUt, your dishonesty is pretending it was not, shows that your words cannot be trusted. 


You are willing to be dishonest in holding on to your dream of a being a Hero, fighting Evul Wacists.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Different poll. Just NH. That's all you've got? Sorry to burst your bubble but NH does not speak for all Republicans. Not even close. Admit it. You're done. You've got nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan is what Powell is not: a leader of culturally extremist forces. He is a Beltway talk-show warrior who thrives on conflict, not on solving problems.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan was deemed too disgusting but Trump is now just dandy. When will Republicans support a Black candidate? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> On the other hand, when will the Democrats support a truly progressive candidate like a Bernie or a Tulsi? No time soon. That's for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I demonstrated repeatedly, republicans supported a black candidate in 96
> 
> There were other times that republicans supported black candidates. Here is another. This guy I personally liked MORE than Powell.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Cain tops Mitt Romney in latest CBS/NYT poll
> 
> 
> Former Godfather's Pizza CEO takes 25 percent to Mitt Romney's 21 percent as Rick Perry plunged to just 6 percent support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.cbsnews.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Cain garnered 25 percent support of Republican primary voters in the poll released on Tuesday, compared to Romney's 21 percent. "
> 
> "Cain's support surged among voters who identified with the conservative Tea Party wing of the Republican party, rising to 32 percent in mid-October from 18 percent just a few weeks ago. That's more than four times the level of support he had from the group in mid-September. "
> 
> Funny how his support is from the conservative side of the party. It is almost as if the lefty stereotypes of the republicans is just completely wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> Dumbshit -- *25%* of Republicans supported Cain according to that poll.
> 
> AND it was 4 months before the election, rendering it meaningless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate.
> 
> Things unfortunately changed before the actual voting, but the thing that changed was not his race.
> 
> 
> This poll disproves the claim that the reason for the lack of republican candidates is racism.
> 
> BY ITSELF it does that. COmbined with the rest, and it reveals your position to be absurd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Front runner status. IF hte primary votes had been held on that day, he would have been the candidate."*
> 
> But the primaries were not held on that day, rendering your claims imaginary. And had he run, one by one those other candidates would have started dropping and you possess zero evidence Cain would have garnered a majority to win the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't recall it ever working out that way. That is sort of what moderates in the GOP hoped would happen with Trump, as the field narrowed, that some "NOT TRUMP" candidate would get ALL the votes freed up as candiates dropped out, and end up winning. Did not happen.
> 
> It is sort of what we conservatives hoped would happen to stop McCain, back in 2008. DIdn't happen.
> 
> And I don't recall any strong anti-Cain movement at the time. Maybe a little from the Establishment who did not like how conservative he was.
> 
> You are the one ignoring the numbers and trying to explain away the information we do have, so that you can hold on to you negative assumptions about people you hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The members are still 32%. Not enough to win a nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Err, you made that point last post. I addressed it. Your scenario that every other vote would go to some "stop Cain" candidate is you coming up with an unlikely scenario to explain away numbers that disprove your dearly held belief in Evul Wacist Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never said every other vote would go to other candidates.  I said you have no evidence Cain would have secured the Republican nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His strong lead is evidence that he would have. You are the one with "no evidence" to support your  unlikely scenario.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> His lead was not as strong as you claim. You're looking at just one poll, and a subset at that. Looking at all the polls, Cain led Romney by just half of one percentage point on the same date of the CBS/NYT poll you posted.
> 
> View attachment 317901
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not just looking at the subset. I posted both the total numbers and the breakdown. (And it was more than half a point. )
> 
> BUT, it is relevant in a world where you liberals like to pretend that conservatives are all Evul Wacists,
> 
> that Cain's base was among conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The total numbers gave Cain a 4 point lead and showed 25% support. But again, that was just one poll. In some others, Romney was on top. On average, Cain's lead was half of one percent.
> 
> So that's what you've shown -- at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you losing 3 out of 4 voters, before you even get a listen on your platform, you won't get to frontrunner status.
> 
> Colin Powell, would not have gotten over 50 % of the votes in the exit poll, if he was losing, half the republcans.
> 
> 
> Your fantasy of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacism, is more something that belongs in some type of historical fantasy game, not a political discussion site.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, that exit poll showed the most of the support for Powell came from Clinton's camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No, it did not.
> 
> YOur strong emotional commitment to your dream, is warping your thinking.
> 
> 
> Please try to explain how you reach that conclusion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Clinton won the actual election with 49% of the vote. Dole, the Republican, pulled in 41%.
> 
> In a hypothetical race with Powell, the Republican got 48% support. 7 points more than Dole. Where did it come from? Most of it came from Clinton's support which dropped from 49% to 36%.
Click to expand...



My God. Most of the ADDITIONAL SUPPORT would have come from people that voted for Clinton, yes.


But the vast majorty of his support would have overlapped with Dole, ie the Republican voters.

Your emotional investment in seeing yourself as a Hero, fighting against Evul Wacists, is warping your thinking.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's literally pointing at two blacks *who were never nominated by the GOP* as evidence the GOP would nominate a black person.
Click to expand...



Correct. The reasons they were not nominated are well know, and not "Evul Wacism".


That you would pretend that does not make sense, is just you being dishonest.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The original crickets are long dead.  The next generation as well.  However, the current generation remains chirping away in anticipation..
Click to expand...



My God, I answered that a long time ago. YOu are pathetic. 


YOur emotional investment in your delusion of yourself as a Hero fighting Evul Wacists, is warping your thinking.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> Why on Earth would I want to give up making a fool of you and your ¼ GOP support for a black candidate??


What color candidates did the remaining 75% of the GOP support?
What color did they end up nominating for President?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
Click to expand...

LOL

Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.

Real serious.


----------



## 22lcidw

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
Click to expand...

There are variables. And a good chunk of them are the Progs in the media/entertainment fiefdom domain. They destroy Repub women and Repub African Americans when they run for high office.  It is endless attacks and the tactics are of pure destruction. Progs can not be having strong Repub women and strong African Americans running for office on the other side. That in affect makes it more difficult for the said candidate to win a general election for President then the other candidates as a Republican.  They are scrutinized much more meticulously.  This scares the Progs. Big time!


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's literally pointing at two blacks *who were never nominated by the GOP* as evidence the GOP would nominate a black person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The reasons they were not nominated are well know, and not "Evul Wacism".
> 
> 
> That you would pretend that does not make sense, is just you being dishonest.
Click to expand...

Says who? You?? A Buchanan supporter??


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The original crickets are long dead.  The next generation as well.  However, the current generation remains chirping away in anticipation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My God, I answered that a long time ago. YOu are pathetic.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Son. I, your God, am pathetic. For picking on you. But if it's any consolation, you've made it fun.


----------



## Grumblenuts

22lcidw said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are variables. And a good chunk of them are the Progs in the media/entertainment fiefdom domain. They destroy Repub women and Repub African Americans when they run for high office.  It is endless attacks and the tactics are of pure destruction. Progs can not be having strong Repub women and strong African Americans running for office on the other side. That in affect makes it more difficult for the said candidate to win a general election for President then the other candidates as a Republican.  They are scrutinized much more meticulously.  This scares the Progs. Big time!
Click to expand...

So media Progs are scaring away the Progs? Say whaa?


----------



## Grumblenuts

If I had voted for Obama in a primary would that have entitled me to a non-racist card?


----------



## CrusaderFrank

IM2 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
Click to expand...

No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower


----------



## Grumblenuts

Birthers Live! But are they born or just pooped out? Stay tuned. Inquiring minds wanna know.  Details at 11:00..


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
Click to expand...



He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them. 


That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,


is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.


THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.


----------



## Correll

22lcidw said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are variables. And a good chunk of them are the Progs in the media/entertainment fiefdom domain. They destroy Repub women and Repub African Americans when they run for high office.  It is endless attacks and the tactics are of pure destruction. Progs can not be having strong Repub women and strong African Americans running for office on the other side. That in affect makes it more difficult for the said candidate to win a general election for President then the other candidates as a Republican.  They are scrutinized much more meticulously.  This scares the Progs. Big time!
Click to expand...



These lefties pretend there is ONE variable, ie Race. And any result other than the one they say should happen, is proof of Evul Wacism.


They pretend to be stupid as hell. But no one is that stupid. I call them liars.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can tell you exactly when we republicans will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The original crickets are long dead.  The next generation as well.  However, the current generation remains chirping away in anticipation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> My God, I answered that a long time ago. YOu are pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you, Son. I, your God, am pathetic. For picking on you. But if it's any consolation, you've made it fun.
Click to expand...



Hee, Hee.


My answer stands. I answered that long ago. You are pathetic.


YOur delusion of being so Hero, fighting Evul Wacists, has been debunked. 


YOur stonewalling on it, is just you holding on to  your fantasy world.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> If I had voted for Obama in a primary would that have entitled me to a non-racist card?




The issue here is that your assumption of Evul Wacism in your enemies, is not based on any reality, but circular logic and self delusion.


YOu KNOW that your enemies are Evul Wacist. So anything you see, such as a lack of black republican presidents, becomes proof of Evul Wacism.


If I point out high levels of support at certain times for certain black republicans for President, 


That does NOT refute the idea, because you just know, that it is not what it looks like, because Evul Wacism.


You are full of blind faith. YOur mind is completely closed to any information that challenges your assumptions about people who are different than you.


And none of this seems self serving to you. Indeed, it is likely that you are not "hearing" this at all.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had voted for Obama in a primary would that have entitled me to a non-racist card?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is that your assumption of Evul Wacism in your enemies, is not based on any reality, but circular logic and self delusion.
> 
> 
> YOu KNOW that your enemies are Evul Wacist. So anything you see, such as a lack of black republican presidents, becomes proof of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> If I point out high levels of support at certain times for certain black republicans for President,
> 
> 
> That does NOT refute the idea, because you just know, that it is not what it looks like, because Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> You are full of blind faith. YOur mind is completely closed to any information that challenges your assumptions about people who are different than you.
> 
> 
> And none of this seems self serving to you. Indeed, it is likely that you are not "hearing" this at all.
Click to expand...

Oh, the irony


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
Click to expand...


How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
Click to expand...

Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.


----------



## IM2

22lcidw said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Republicans were obviously perfectly ready to elect a Perry President. After all, he was the Tea Party front runner earliest on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And then as Herman Cain got his message to the voters, Perry lost supporters, and Cain gained them.
> 
> 
> The primaries are a chaotic and messy process. The best man does not always win, obviously. THe best man is often ganged up on, by the pack  and destroyed.
> 
> BUT, is obvious from the way Cain gained support and led until destroyed, that the republican voters were happy to support him.
> 
> 
> Which smashes your fantasy of Evul Wascist supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Cain's Republican support lasted just 3 weeks and he was never more than 2½ points above Romney during that brief period. That's who you're claiming would have won if not for the media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are variables. And a good chunk of them are the Progs in the media/entertainment fiefdom domain. They destroy Repub women and Repub African Americans when they run for high office.  It is endless attacks and the tactics are of pure destruction. Progs can not be having strong Repub women and strong African Americans running for office on the other side. That in affect makes it more difficult for the said candidate to win a general election for President then the other candidates as a Republican.  They are scrutinized much more meticulously.  This scares the Progs. Big time!
Click to expand...


Look, whites need to stop thinking they can determine who blacks decide are our leaders. The black republicans put out there in leadership do not represent the best interests of the black community. They often parrot the rhetoric of white supremacists. The media does not destroy them, they destroy themselves for what they represent. These are not strong black people, but to whites like you they are strong because they help you with your agenda. Progressives are not why republicans cannot nominate a black candidate.


----------



## IM2

CrusaderFrank said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
Click to expand...


The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

IM2 said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
Click to expand...


Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.

See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.







Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.

You're gullible.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
Click to expand...

If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:


> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"


Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


> Look, whites need to stop thinking they can determine who blacks decide are our leaders. The black republicans put out there in leadership do not represent the best interests of the black community. They often parrot the rhetoric of white supremacists.


Agreed. That said, rarely have the Democrats or Republicans offered anyone I felt comfortable supporting. The entire system is geared to promote fork tongued opportunists rather than true public servants. The fight never seems to get easier for any of us. Supporting the "lesser evil" guarantees maintenance of the current level of evil at best.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I had voted for Obama in a primary would that have entitled me to a non-racist card?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue here is that your assumption of Evul Wacism in your enemies, is not based on any reality, but circular logic and self delusion.
> 
> 
> YOu KNOW that your enemies are Evul Wacist. So anything you see, such as a lack of black republican presidents, becomes proof of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> If I point out high levels of support at certain times for certain black republicans for President,
> 
> 
> That does NOT refute the idea, because you just know, that it is not what it looks like, because Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> You are full of blind faith. YOur mind is completely closed to any information that challenges your assumptions about people who are different than you.
> 
> 
> And none of this seems self serving to you. Indeed, it is likely that you are not "hearing" this at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, the irony
Click to expand...



There is no irony. 

YOu are delusional, ignoring information you don't like, while I am pointing out information to support my position.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
Click to expand...



What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
Click to expand...



Because you defer to them based on their race.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?




Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Example, Tulsi Gabbard seemed like a great candidate to me. Dropped out and endorsed Biden. Wtf?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
Click to expand...

it says that Cain didn't run again because there were no "REPUBLICANS" urging him to run......

You do understand that people can run for president more than once right? Especially when there is a ground swell of support for that person running...

Cain had ZERO after his first campaign


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.
Click to expand...

Ahh...the racists still pushing the birther conspiracy...

How come the investigators Trump supposedly hired never presented all of this "proof" they had??

This is why I have ZERO respect for lying ass cowards such as yourself...this is also why you are a sycophant for lying ass cowards like Trump....


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
Click to expand...

Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.  


> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says that Cain didn't run again because there were no "REPUBLICANS" urging him to run......
> 
> You do understand that people can run for president more than once right? Especially when there is a ground swell of support for that person running...
> 
> Cain had ZERO after his first campaign
Click to expand...




As a former Cain supporter, I'm reading your words, and I don't see what the "bad thing" being said about Cain, is.


I still regret the way the stupid voters, listened to bullshit allegations from the vile media, and I still think the world would have been a better place if he had won the Presidency in 2012.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ahh...the racists still pushing the birther conspiracy...
> 
> How come the investigators Trump supposedly hired never presented all of this "proof" they had??
> 
> This is why I have ZERO respect for lying ass cowards such as yourself...this is also why you are a sycophant for lying ass cowards like Trump....
Click to expand...




Because we look at the words of black dem candidates and actually talk about the shit they said?

Yes, I can see why that would make you very angry.


But, in our defense, we do the same to the white dem candidates, and that makes you just as mad. 


So, you can shove your false accusations of Evul Wacism, back up your ass where you pulled them from.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people. 


When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.


YOu are the racist here, not I.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says that Cain didn't run again because there were no "REPUBLICANS" urging him to run......
> 
> You do understand that people can run for president more than once right? Especially when there is a ground swell of support for that person running...
> 
> Cain had ZERO after his first campaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a former Cain supporter, I'm reading your words, and I don't see what the "bad thing" being said about Cain, is.
> 
> 
> I still regret the way the stupid voters, listened to bullshit allegations from the vile media, and I still think the world would have been a better place if he had won the Presidency in 2012.
Click to expand...

Don't change the fact that those "stupid voters" didn't want Cain to ever run for president again....

But something tells me that those "stupid voters" would support the following.....Let's go thru them again....

*Jesse Lee Peterson* -- He would be a great candidate because he is famous for believing that not only does racism against blacks NOT exist....but it has NEVER existed...he also believes that the only people discriminated against in this country has been whites.....that type of minstrel talk really gets the sheet wearers going...he also feels women shouldn't be allowed to vote....that plays well with the incel and MGTOW crowd..



*KingFace* -- He is new on the scene, he famously said he became a Trump supporter because it made him money to do so......He doesn't really have any policy positions, but he does provide that "I'm a thug, but I'm a thug for Trump" appeal.....


*Candace Owens* -- She also became a Trumper relatively late...she was anti-Trump before..and not long before that, she was a "liberal" -- she is also famous for saying racism doesn't exist -- even tho she asked the NAACP to help her sue her school for racism.....


*Michael The Black Man *-- he is a staunch opponent of "identity politics" and thinks it is stupid to get attention or praise just for being a black this, or a black that....He was also a long time member of the black israelites and Yahweh Ben Yahweh cult and was even arrested on murder charges, but was found not innocent....that cult background could be huge for him if he runs for president....


So why don't you support any of these strong conservatives to be president?? Face it, Cain is over with.....and you hate Colin Powell...time to get with the wave of the new conservative future.....


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it says that Cain didn't run again because there were no "REPUBLICANS" urging him to run......
> 
> You do understand that people can run for president more than once right? Especially when there is a ground swell of support for that person running...
> 
> Cain had ZERO after his first campaign
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As a former Cain supporter, I'm reading your words, and I don't see what the "bad thing" being said about Cain, is.
> 
> 
> I still regret the way the stupid voters, listened to bullshit allegations from the vile media, and I still think the world would have been a better place if he had won the Presidency in 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't change the fact that those "stupid voters" didn't want Cain to ever run for president again....
> 
> ....
Click to expand...




so what was the supposed "BAD THING" it said about Cain? 


Or was that just some shit you were saying and now you move on to the next serving of shit?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
Click to expand...

So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
Click to expand...



Deferring to them, and dismissing and ignoring white interests, while discussing something that is "explicitly about that minority",


yes, is the text book definition of racism.


THat you can't see that,is because you are in the grip of a form of irrationality.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
Click to expand...


I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.



> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.



After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
Click to expand...

Your prerogative.


----------



## Faun

CrusaderFrank said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
Click to expand...

_*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_

LOL 

What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
Click to expand...

It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
Click to expand...



It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?


Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is 


"Evul Wacism".


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.
Click to expand...

Oh? What lie did he tell?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
Click to expand...

Because it's been debunked.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Faun said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
Click to expand...


Prove that Obama wrote his own bio?


----------



## Faun

CrusaderFrank said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Prove that Obama wrote his own bio?
Click to expand...

Prove that Obama told his publisher he was born in Kenya...


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Deferring to them, and dismissing and ignoring white interests, while discussing something that is "explicitly about that minority",
> 
> 
> yes, is the text book definition of racism.
> 
> 
> THat you can't see that,is because you are in the grip of a form of irrationality.
Click to expand...

Define "white interests"? Pretty hard not to dismiss or ignore what you keep babbling about yet refuse to define..


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
Click to expand...


Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
Click to expand...

Just to make my intent crystal clear.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.
Click to expand...



No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election  comes around.


Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.


You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point. 

And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.


You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains. 


You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
Click to expand...




We got your intent. YOu know what you know, and any information or logic to the contrary be damned.


That what you "know", means that you are a super duper heroic Hero, fighting against the Evul Wacist Supervillains, and thus, soo super duper cool, and not just a partisan hack who is rude to people for no real reason, 


is just a coincidence.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
Click to expand...


It was a two word response. It doesn't get any clearer than "Your prerogative".


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election  comes around.
> 
> 
> Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.
> 
> And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.
> 
> 
> You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.
> 
> 
> You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.
Click to expand...

He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
Click to expand...

Apparently, you are a super hero according to Cory L...

You come up with a name yet?


....don't use "The Black Avenger" tho....I got dibs on that one....


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a two word response. It doesn't get any clearer than "Your prerogative".
Click to expand...

Good. Keep in mind I've been going back and forth with Correll who still can't explain what he means by "white interests." < Two words.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you are a super hero according to Cory L...
> 
> You come up with a name yet?
> 
> 
> ....don't use "The Black Avenger" tho....I got dibs on that one....
Click to expand...

I'll take "Evul Wacist"


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a two word response. It doesn't get any clearer than "Your prerogative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. Keep in mind I've been going back and forth with Correll who still can't explain what he means by "white interests." < Two words.
Click to expand...


As far as that goes, what does one mean when he says "black interests"?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a two word response. It doesn't get any clearer than "Your prerogative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. Keep in mind I've been going back and forth with Correll who still can't explain what he means by "white interests." < Two words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as that goes, what does one mean when he says "black interests"?
Click to expand...

Exactly. If not clear from the context, one should be able to request clarification and get a rational response.


----------



## katsteve2012

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
Click to expand...


Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful"  and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What lie did he tell?
Click to expand...



That he was born in Kenya


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
Click to expand...



You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.

Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.

Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Deferring to them, and dismissing and ignoring white interests, while discussing something that is "explicitly about that minority",
> 
> 
> yes, is the text book definition of racism.
> 
> 
> THat you can't see that,is because you are in the grip of a form of irrationality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Define "white interests"? Pretty hard not to dismiss or ignore what you keep babbling about yet refuse to define..
Click to expand...



It is a general term. Obviously.  

IN this specific case, we are talking about the right to have those interests considered even if they are involved in a situation where there are also minority interests. 

Your position is to just defer to minority interests, based on being a "minority".

That is not reasonable, and it is racist, actual racism. 


YOu are actually a racist, pushing racist policies and practices.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a two word response. It doesn't get any clearer than "Your prerogative".
Click to expand...



He is just being silly, trying to dodge the fact that his position is absurd.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election  comes around.
> 
> 
> Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.
> 
> And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.
> 
> 
> You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.
> 
> 
> You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?
Click to expand...



Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you are a super hero according to Cory L...
> 
> You come up with a name yet?
> 
> 
> ....don't use "The Black Avenger" tho....I got dibs on that one....
Click to expand...



I've been telling you that you are NOT heroes, fightin Evul Wacist Supervillains. 

NOT.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a two word response. It doesn't get any clearer than "Your prerogative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. Keep in mind I've been going back and forth with Correll who still can't explain what he means by "white interests." < Two words.
Click to expand...



Not can't. Won't. Because your pretense of not knowing, is not credible. 


YOu are lying.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful"  and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.
Click to expand...




That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> It is a general term.


Meaning?


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you are a super hero according to Cory L...
> 
> You come up with a name yet?
> 
> 
> ....don't use "The Black Avenger" tho....I got dibs on that one....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've been telling you that you are NOT heroes, fightin Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> NOT.
Click to expand...

You are the one saying we are superheros....I am flattered...but.....flattery will get you no where Cory L....

You are still the glass joe of debates....


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a two word response. It doesn't get any clearer than "Your prerogative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. Keep in mind I've been going back and forth with Correll who still can't explain what he means by "white interests." < Two words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as that goes, what does one mean when he says "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. If not clear from the context, one should be able to request clarification and get a rational response.
Click to expand...


One of the implications of this discussion is that there are few black Republicans and that this is so because the Republican party does not give much attention to black interests (or that it is outright racist, which is basically the same thing). So, if blacks are concerned about black interests and vote accordingly, it's not quite fair to demand clarification of white interests without also asking for clarification of black interests. 

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Agreed. What are "black interests"?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a general term.
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning?
Click to expand...


I'm sorry. I cannot treat seriously, your pretense of being too stupid to understand common english words.

If, I am wrong, and you really are unable to understand, then you are in the bad place of having to suffer ignorance because of my mistake.

IN that case ask a friend or one of the nurses, that are caring for you. 

I will be operating under the belief system that you are just being dishonestly evasive to run and hide from a debate you have lost.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently, you are a super hero according to Cory L...
> 
> You come up with a name yet?
> 
> 
> ....don't use "The Black Avenger" tho....I got dibs on that one....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've been telling you that you are NOT heroes, fightin Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the one saying we are superheros....I am flattered...but.....flattery will get you no where Cory L....
> 
> You are still the glass joe of debates....
Click to expand...




YOur pretense of being too stupid to understand the word, "not" is not credible.


I believe that you are stupid. But I do not believe you are THAT stupid.


So, anytime you want to give up that sad little game, we can move on.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if this is what he was referring to but the principle is the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After all my interactions with IM2 where he consistently misconstrued and conflated everything I said; called me a liar without cause or evidence and whose usual response to a white person disagreeing with him is "Shut the fuck up whitey", I'm not about to defer to him on anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why did you post a link to the dictionary definition?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just to make my intent crystal clear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a two word response. It doesn't get any clearer than "Your prerogative".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good. Keep in mind I've been going back and forth with Correll who still can't explain what he means by "white interests." < Two words.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As far as that goes, what does one mean when he says "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Exactly. If not clear from the context, one should be able to request clarification and get a rational response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of the implications of this discussion is that there are few black Republicans and that this is so because the Republican party does not give much attention to black interests (or that it is outright racist, which is basically the same thing). So, if blacks are concerned about black interests and vote accordingly, it's not quite fair to demand clarification of white interests without also asking for clarification of black interests.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...



Sure they can. That is what libs DO. All the time.


You ask them to not have double standards, and they get quite testy.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Agreed. What are "black interests"?




A little late to ask that now.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Grumblenuts said:


> Agreed. What are "black interests"?



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

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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What lie did he tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That he was born in Kenya
Click to expand...

Quote him saying that....


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
Click to expand...

No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election  comes around.
> 
> 
> Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.
> 
> And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.
> 
> 
> You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.
> 
> 
> You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.
> 
> 
> EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.
Click to expand...

I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What lie did he tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That he was born in Kenya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote him saying that....
Click to expand...



It's in his bio.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that the sort of proof you'd present today to get a passport? A page from a biography?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems relevant to me, that a man who wanted to be President of this country, was ashamed to be born in this country to the point he lied about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh? What lie did he tell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That he was born in Kenya
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote him saying that....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's in his bio.
Click to expand...

... as opposed to his *autobiography*.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
Click to expand...



i'm sure they did.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election  comes around.
> 
> 
> Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.
> 
> And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.
> 
> 
> You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.
> 
> 
> You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.
> 
> 
> EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.
Click to expand...




Your words from above, "of course it says something bad about him".


EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election  comes around.
> 
> 
> Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.
> 
> And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.
> 
> 
> You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.
> 
> 
> You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.
> 
> 
> EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from above, "of course it says something bad about him".
> 
> 
> EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.
Click to expand...

Well his GOP supporters abandoned him upon claims of sexual harassment surfaced.


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
Click to expand...




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


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


Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
Click to expand...



oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
Click to expand...

LOL

You sound insane. 

What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perry in turn lost the momentum following poor performances in the September debates, and the third major opponent *to Romney's lead*, Herman Cain, surged after the sixth debate on September 22. In November, Cain's viability as a candidate was seriously jeopardized after several allegations of sexual harassment surfaced in the media. Although Cain denied the allegations, the fallout from the controversy forced him to suspend his campaign on December 3, 2011.
> 
> 
> 
> And that was it for Cain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. Very sad. But the point remains. The GOP voters were quite happy with him, until he was destroyed by the media.
> 
> Thus disproving your sides delusional claim of Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You disproved no such thing. In an average of the polls, Cain never garnered greater than 26% of GOP support. That is nowhere near enough to win the party's nomination and in no way proves there aren't so many racists in the GOP, that's it's virtually impossible for a black candidate to win in that little tent party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe frontrunner in a big field, is the person that has garnered the most support, despite the support being split among many candidates. That a person might not have a majority, does not mean that he is not the frontrunner, not the strongest candidate, nor the choice of the biggest portion of voters.
> 
> 2. YOur point about the possibility of secret racism among the voters, as a reason for them choosing to support other primary candidates, instead of all the other possible reasons is completely unsupported.  You are assuming that, based on nothing but your hatred of people who oppose you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It matters not that it was a big field. That he briefly led the pack is not evidence he would have won. On an average of the polls, he peaked at about 26%. At one point, Perry led the pack with about 32% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him. At one point, Paul led the pack with about 34% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.  At one point, Gingrich led the pack with about 35% support, the party didn't ultimately pick him either.
> 
> At one point, Romney led the pack, then he didn't, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, then he did again, then he didn't again, and then finally he did and for good.
> 
> Leading the pack is not a ticket to the nomination until the end.
> 
> But you proved at least ¼ of Republicans are not racist.
> 
> Bully for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading the pack, is evidence that he was a serious contender.
> 
> 
> IF the GOP was half as Evul Wacist as you dems like to pretend, that would never have ben the case.
> 
> 
> You know it. But you are too dishonest to admit it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's not evidence of that. Again, that year alone, Romney, Gingrich, Cain, Paul and Perry all led at one point. Cain was the least supported among that group never enjoying more than 26% support from his party and Cain being the first of that group to bail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And they were all serious contenders. None of them had any quality that would have made them secretly unacceptable to the party's voters as a whole.
> 
> 
> That is the point.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> 
> Give it up. YOu are looking pathetic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit. At one brief period during this election, Warren was the front runner. She was never a serious candidate; eventually pulling a whopping 81 delegates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cain was.
> 
> 
> Your delusion of being a hero, fighting Evul Wacists, is debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Says you. Reality says he never had more than about a quarter of the party's support and he was the first Republican candidate that year to drop from the race.
> 
> Real serious.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He got ahead and was dogpiled and destroyed. Happens to the best of them.
> 
> 
> That you pretend it says something bad about him, instead of just being something that happens,
> 
> 
> is you being dishonest in the defense of your fantasy.
> 
> 
> THe fantasy you have, of you being this cool Hero, fighting against Evul Wacist Supervillains.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it says something bad about him. Your denial of that doesn't alter reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? How in the world does that say anything "bad" about Cain?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says he was such a defective candidate, he couldn't maintain his campaign.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one "maintains" a campaign between elections. They choose whether or not to try again when the next election  comes around.
> 
> 
> Not trying again, is only "something bad" if you believe that his likely benefit to the country would have been worth the effort or cost to himself and his campaign workers.
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws, to justify dismissing this guy, who was the frontrunner at one point.
> 
> And that fact that he was the front runner, is strong evidence that your view of us as a bunch of "Evul Wacist" is just a self serving delusion.
> 
> 
> You are not, a Hero fighting Evul Wacist supervillains.
> 
> 
> You are just a partisan looking for excuses to be rude and dismissive to people who disagree with you on politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was already campaigning for the Republican nomination for president. Who the fuck are you kidding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your words are not making sense. I think you forgot what argument you were making and accidentally starting making a different one.
> 
> 
> EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I wasn't the one finding fault with Cain. It's his supporters who found that. They abandoned him and he dropped out of the running.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your words from above, "of course it says something bad about him".
> 
> 
> EIther way, your need to find fault with Cain, is silly and irrelevant. He was the frontrunner of the gop, which is strong evidence that your claim of Evul Wacism, is incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well his GOP supporters abandoned him upon claims of sexual harassment surfaced.
Click to expand...



Correct. But before that, they were happy to support him, thus undermining your belief in Evul Wacism. 



Black guy running for President with a fairly radical and conservative platform, and conservative republicans were drawn to him in fairly large numbers. 


A historical event that conflicts with your view of the GOP.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
Click to expand...



if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers. 


And you people would make her pay for that.


----------



## Biff_Poindexter

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
Click to expand...

I know yo sissy ass likes to jump in the middle of other people's conversations.....but this was directed at what someone else said, not you pussy....


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
Click to expand...

Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane. 

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?


----------



## Correll

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know yo sissy ass likes to jump in the middle of other people's conversations.....but this was directed at what someone else said, not you pussy....
Click to expand...



Ghost was addressing a point that came up between Grumble and me.


i don't know why you are flipping out.


Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
Click to expand...



Because she likely did not make any mistake.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?


Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
Click to expand...

Why would she put that in there then?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?
> 
> 
> 
> Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.
Click to expand...


I was not asking you. I was asking the other lefty, the one that flipped out for no obvious reason.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
Click to expand...



Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?
> 
> 
> 
> Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not asking you. I was asking the other lefty, the one that flipped out for no obvious reason.
Click to expand...

Then you should PM them if you don't want others to answer you on the public forums.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
Click to expand...

If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?

You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?


----------



## Ghost of a Rider

Biff_Poindexter said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
Click to expand...


I don't give a shit about blacks having black interests; my problem is with those who assume that whites who are concerned about white interests are just racist.

As I said, you can't have it both ways.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?
> 
> 
> 
> Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not asking you. I was asking the other lefty, the one that flipped out for no obvious reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should PM them if you don't want others to answer you on the public forums.
Click to expand...



Why would I do that?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
Click to expand...



Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.


----------



## Correll

Ghost of a Rider said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't give a shit about blacks having black interests; my problem is with those who assume that whites who are concerned about white interests are just racist.
> 
> As I said, you can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...



And that is completely reasonable and honest.


Thank you.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?
> 
> 
> 
> Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not asking you. I was asking the other lefty, the one that flipped out for no obvious reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should PM them if you don't want others to answer you on the public forums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?
Click to expand...

To prevent others from responding so you wouldn't have to complain to others.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?
> 
> 
> 
> Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not asking you. I was asking the other lefty, the one that flipped out for no obvious reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should PM them if you don't want others to answer you on the public forums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To prevent others from responding so you wouldn't have to complain to others.
Click to expand...



Letting you know, that my question was directed at the lib that flipped out for no reason, was not a complaint.

YOur point that I am making the statement to draw attention to how absurd the liberal position is, is a reasonable one, thought truthfully, incorrect.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."



Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.

And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...

What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?
> 
> 
> 
> Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not asking you. I was asking the other lefty, the one that flipped out for no obvious reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should PM them if you don't want others to answer you on the public forums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To prevent others from responding so you wouldn't have to complain to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Letting you know, that my question was directed at the lib that flipped out for no reason, was not a complaint.
> 
> YOur point that I am making the statement to draw attention to how absurd the liberal position is, is a reasonable one, thought truthfully, incorrect.
Click to expand...

Sounded like a complaint to me. You're also way off base thinking when I said, "desperate argument ad absurdum," I was talking about the Liberal position. But then, you have clearly identified yourself as a conspiracy nut -- so there's that.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
Click to expand...




1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.


2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
Click to expand...

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


> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.


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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does it upset you when I make fun of your world view with my use of "Evul Wacism"?
> 
> 
> 
> Not me personally, I disregard that as a desperate argument ad absurdum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was not asking you. I was asking the other lefty, the one that flipped out for no obvious reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should PM them if you don't want others to answer you on the public forums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would I do that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To prevent others from responding so you wouldn't have to complain to others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Letting you know, that my question was directed at the lib that flipped out for no reason, was not a complaint.
> 
> YOur point that I am making the statement to draw attention to how absurd the liberal position is, is a reasonable one, thought truthfully, incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sounded like a complaint to me. You're also way off base thinking when I said, "desperate argument ad absurdum," I was talking about the Liberal position. But then, you have clearly identified yourself as a conspiracy nut -- so there's that.
Click to expand...




1. No, just letting you know, that I was not asking you. That is not a complaint.

2. Yes, I realize that you were discussion my argument. And you were wrong. My intent was not to draw attention to the absurdity of the liberal position, which is what you said....wait, do you not even know the meaning of the phrase you used? LOL!!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
Click to expand...




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

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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
Click to expand...


"bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.

And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.

Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
Click to expand...



1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?

2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
Click to expand...

Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.

And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
Click to expand...


1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.


2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
Click to expand...

I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.

Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.
> 
> Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.
Click to expand...




Sure. Maybe. 

But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
Click to expand...



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


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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
Click to expand...

Now the other one again..


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
Click to expand...

As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.

She says her mistake was a "fact checking error."  Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...

*NY Times, 2.5.1990*
*Boston Globe, 2.15.1990*
Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in *blue *and the text found in the Globe in *red *and *purple *for both...
​_*Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review*,* was born in* Kenya *and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist *and editor for Business International Corporation. *He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. *His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White._​
Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.

As she said, her mistake was a *"fact checking error."*


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful"  and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.
Click to expand...


It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.

Frankly, it does not matter to me at all. 

It is just a factual observation.

I'm retired, out of the workforce and loving life, and don't owe white people as a collective,  shit. 

The ones who are fortunate enough to be in my circle, I help them when they need me.


So I don't hate any of you. 

But I amused by some of you.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.
> 
> Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Maybe.
> 
> But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.
Click to expand...

LOL

What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?

The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
Click to expand...




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


Dude.


This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.


Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
Click to expand...




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


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


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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.
> 
> She says her mistake was a "fact checking error."  Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...
> 
> *NY Times, 2.5.1990*
> *Boston Globe, 2.15.1990*
> Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in *blue *and the text found in the Globe in *red *and *purple *for both...
> ​_*Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review*,* was born in* Kenya *and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist *and editor for Business International Corporation. *He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. *His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White._​
> Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.
> 
> As she said, her mistake was a *"fact checking error."*
Click to expand...



And how would she remember that, twenty years after the fact? How does she know she made the mistake and it is not what Obama told her?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful"  and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.
> 
> .....
Click to expand...



Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".


Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority". 

THat is not fair to whites.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.
> 
> Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Maybe.
> 
> But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?
> 
> The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.
Click to expand...




She takes the blame to avoid the rage of people like you.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
Click to expand...




Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.


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


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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".
> 
> THat is not fair to whites.


Because?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".
> 
> THat is not fair to whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Because?
Click to expand...




Because it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
Click to expand...



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

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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.
> 
> She says her mistake was a "fact checking error."  Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...
> 
> *NY Times, 2.5.1990*
> *Boston Globe, 2.15.1990*
> Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in *blue *and the text found in the Globe in *red *and *purple *for both...
> ​_*Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review*,* was born in* Kenya *and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist *and editor for Business International Corporation. *He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. *His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White._​
> Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.
> 
> As she said, her mistake was a *"fact checking error."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And how would she remember that, twenty years after the fact? How does she know she made the mistake and it is not what Obama told her?
Click to expand...

Because unlike you, she has a brain. That provides her the ability to recall work she had done for the man who became president.

Shit, I quoted the publisher from Acton & Dystel saying folks like Obama almost never wrote their own bio's AND I just showed you nearly everything in his bio had already appeared in newspapers (and much of the rest could have come from other publications I didn't find) -- and yet you still cling to your nutty conspiracy theory. 

Again, Both Obama and his father went to Harvard according to the newspaper articles back then ... they both went by the same name, "Barack Obama." You seriously saying it's not entirely plausible she mixed up his birthplace?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
Click to expand...

Much better. Left leg..


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".
> 
> THat is not fair to whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race.
Click to expand...

Oh, now us whites always lose out because of our race


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.
> 
> She says her mistake was a "fact checking error."  Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...
> 
> *NY Times, 2.5.1990*
> *Boston Globe, 2.15.1990*
> Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in *blue *and the text found in the Globe in *red *and *purple *for both...
> ​_*Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review*,* was born in* Kenya *and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist *and editor for Business International Corporation. *He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. *His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White._​
> Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.
> 
> As she said, her mistake was a *"fact checking error."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And how would she remember that, twenty years after the fact? How does she know she made the mistake and it is not what Obama told her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because unlike you, she has a brain. That provides her the ability to recall work she had done for the man who became president.
> 
> Shit, I quoted the publisher from Acton & Dystel saying folks like Obama almost never wrote their own bio's AND I just showed you nearly everything in his bio had already appeared in newspapers (and much of the rest could have come from other publications I didn't find) -- and yet you still cling to your nutty conspiracy theory.
> 
> Again, Both Obama and his father went to Harvard according to the newspaper articles back then ... they both went by the same name, "Barack Obama." You seriously saying it's not entirely plausible she mixed up his birthplace?
Click to expand...



1. I'm completely comfortable with the possibility that she wrote it. All that you just put up there about that, was you arguing with  voices in your head.

2. What were you doing, on this day, is 2000 at work?

3. Seems unlikely that you would mix up something like that. Dates would be very off. Seems more likely Obama is an anti-American piece of shit.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".
> 
> THat is not fair to whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Because?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, now us whites always lose out because of our race
Click to expand...



That is what you said you support. ANd many of you libs obviously agree.


----------



## Grumblenuts

No, "it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race" was all you. You should be grateful I simply let 'Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority"' pass.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.
> 
> Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Maybe.
> 
> But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?
> 
> The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She takes the blame to avoid the rage of people like you.
Click to expand...

In typical rightarded conspiracy nut fashion, you make no sense. 

Then why would she risk the potential rage from folks like you by saying anything at all? Again, she had a third option had Obama told her that -- to stay quiet and say nothing at all.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.
> 
> Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Maybe.
> 
> But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?
> 
> The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She takes the blame to avoid the rage of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In typical rightarded conspiracy nut fashion, you make no sense.
> 
> Then why would she risk the potential rage from folks like you by saying anything at all? Again, she had a third option had Obama told her that -- to stay quiet and say nothing at all.
Click to expand...

Yes, you've covered all the bases repeatedly now and then some. This toad just never stops. But if you need your leg pulled.. none too shabby.. at least half the time!


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.
> 
> She says her mistake was a "fact checking error."  Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...
> 
> *NY Times, 2.5.1990*
> *Boston Globe, 2.15.1990*
> Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in *blue *and the text found in the Globe in *red *and *purple *for both...
> ​_*Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review*,* was born in* Kenya *and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist *and editor for Business International Corporation. *He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. *His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White._​
> Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.
> 
> As she said, her mistake was a *"fact checking error."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And how would she remember that, twenty years after the fact? How does she know she made the mistake and it is not what Obama told her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because unlike you, she has a brain. That provides her the ability to recall work she had done for the man who became president.
> 
> Shit, I quoted the publisher from Acton & Dystel saying folks like Obama almost never wrote their own bio's AND I just showed you nearly everything in his bio had already appeared in newspapers (and much of the rest could have come from other publications I didn't find) -- and yet you still cling to your nutty conspiracy theory.
> 
> Again, Both Obama and his father went to Harvard according to the newspaper articles back then ... they both went by the same name, "Barack Obama." You seriously saying it's not entirely plausible she mixed up his birthplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm completely comfortable with the possibility that she wrote it. All that you just put up there about that, was you arguing with  voices in your head.
> 
> 2. What were you doing, on this day, is 2000 at work?
> 
> 3. Seems unlikely that you would mix up something like that. Dates would be very off. Seems more likely Obama is an anti-American piece of shit.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You're beyond help. 

I argued nothing from my head. Hysterically, you're the one doing that. I'm the one quoting Obama's former publisher, editor and newspaper articles about him.

And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.

As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?

And what dates would be off? She never said anything about specific dates. A pamphlet she worked on years earlier was receiving national attention. That alone could easily jar her memory. Even more so that the bio she wrote was about the current president of the U.S..

But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.


----------



## Faun

Grumblenuts said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.
> 
> Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Maybe.
> 
> But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?
> 
> The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She takes the blame to avoid the rage of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In typical rightarded conspiracy nut fashion, you make no sense.
> 
> Then why would she risk the potential rage from folks like you by saying anything at all? Again, she had a third option had Obama told her that -- to stay quiet and say nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, you've covered all the bases repeatedly now and then some. This toad just never stops. But if you need your leg pulled.. none too shabby.. at least half the time!
Click to expand...

That's one of the reasons it's fun fucking with him -- he never learns. Not ever.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
Click to expand...

LOL

What debate did he lose??

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> No, "it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race" was all you. You should be grateful I simply let 'Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority"' pass.




That is your stated position, as I understand it.


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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.
> 
> Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Maybe.
> 
> But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?
> 
> The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She takes the blame to avoid the rage of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In typical rightarded conspiracy nut fashion, you make no sense.
> 
> Then why would she risk the potential rage from folks like you by saying anything at all? Again, she had a third option had Obama told her that -- to stay quiet and say nothing at all.
Click to expand...




1. Because we are not the asshole mob.

2. Quiet would not have been enough for you people, and you know it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race" was all you. You should be grateful I simply let 'Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority"' pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your stated position, as I understand it.
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
Click to expand...

I'd love to. The minute you explain what you mean by "white interests" or "ONE White interest".. with examples..


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As far as her mistake, it's a rather easy mistake to make.
> 
> She says her mistake was a "fact checking error."  Fact checking entails research. Research could have come from Obama and/or from other sources. Researching other sources was entirely in the realm of possibilities. Even then, like now. Though while we have the Internet now, they did have microfiche back then to search newspapers -- and several newspapers had previously written up articles on Obama. I found a couple of these articles which are now on the Internet and found nearly everything she wrote in Obama's bio can be found in these articles...
> 
> *NY Times, 2.5.1990*
> *Boston Globe, 2.15.1990*
> Following is the complete text from his bio on that pamphlet. I've highlight the text which is found in the NYT in *blue *and the text found in the Globe in *red *and *purple *for both...
> ​_*Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review*,* was born in* Kenya *and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist *and editor for Business International Corporation. *He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. *His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White._​
> Clearly, she did her research. As far as the mistake about Obama being born in Kenya, Obama's father had the same name and also went to Harvard but was born in Kenya. It's entirely plausible she mixed up Obama with his dad while doing her research.
> 
> As she said, her mistake was a *"fact checking error."*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And how would she remember that, twenty years after the fact? How does she know she made the mistake and it is not what Obama told her?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because unlike you, she has a brain. That provides her the ability to recall work she had done for the man who became president.
> 
> Shit, I quoted the publisher from Acton & Dystel saying folks like Obama almost never wrote their own bio's AND I just showed you nearly everything in his bio had already appeared in newspapers (and much of the rest could have come from other publications I didn't find) -- and yet you still cling to your nutty conspiracy theory.
> 
> Again, Both Obama and his father went to Harvard according to the newspaper articles back then ... they both went by the same name, "Barack Obama." You seriously saying it's not entirely plausible she mixed up his birthplace?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I'm completely comfortable with the possibility that she wrote it. All that you just put up there about that, was you arguing with  voices in your head.
> 
> 2. What were you doing, on this day, is 2000 at work?
> 
> 3. Seems unlikely that you would mix up something like that. Dates would be very off. Seems more likely Obama is an anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're beyond help.
> 
> I argued nothing from my head. Hysterically, you're the one doing that. I'm the one quoting Obama's former publisher, editor and newspaper articles about him.
Click to expand...


YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.



> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.



I never claimed she could remember that. 




> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?




I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.




> And what dates would be off?...".



The dates from Father and Son. 



> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.




I never claimed to have proof about this.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Grumblenuts said:


>


You would not have voted for Herman Cain. I would have. Fuck you, you Communist turd.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
Click to expand...




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


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



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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would not have voted for Herman Cain. I would have. Fuck you, you Communist turd.
Click to expand...

No, I refuse to vote for people who I believe will make our country worse should they win.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, "it is not fair to always lose out, because of your race" was all you. You should be grateful I simply let 'Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority"' pass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is your stated position, as I understand it.
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'd love to. The minute you explain what you mean by "white interests" or "ONE White interest".. with examples..
Click to expand...




1 Your cowardly dodge is noted. YOu are pathetic.

2. When you refuse to admit that there even are white interests, by definition you are stating that you are against them being represented.


3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?


----------



## Correll

Marion Morrison said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would not have voted for Herman Cain. I would have. Fuck you, you Communist turd.
Click to expand...



Thanks.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya"*_
> 
> LOL
> 
> What a pity. Even after all these years, you still can't prove that.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's a pretty reasonable explanation for the evidence. Why are you acting like it is not?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you NEED to believe that the only possible reason for opposition to anything you support, is
> 
> 
> "Evul Wacism".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it's been debunked.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You guys say that about everything and anything that you don't like. It doesn't actually mean anything any more.
> 
> Long before he wanted to be President, he was telling people he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Believing him, is not Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this was truly debunked. The person who edited his bio and put that in came forth with a mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i'm sure they did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why wouldn't they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> oh, they surely should. ANy resistance to the Agenda, is likely to get them destroyed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You sound insane.
> 
> What resistance? Had she not edited his bio, she would have remained silent on the matter.
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if she had denied making a mistake, and said that Obama told her that, she would have been seen by people like you, as siding with the Evul Wacist Birthers.
> 
> 
> And you people would make her pay for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she deny making a mistake? Again, she would have simply stayed quiet. Who even knew she edited his bio until she admitted it? Again, you sound insane.
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because she likely did not make any mistake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would she put that in there then?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would she put it in there? Presumably because Obama made a point of telling her it, because he was so proud of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If Obama told her that because he was so proud of being born in Kenya (according to nuts like you), then why did Obama previously tell others he was Hawaii?
> 
> You also didn't answer the question, so here it is again ... What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was goofy anti-American punk playing with how to be play being an edgy cool anti-American piece of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> By "goofy anti-American punk," you mean president of the Harvard Law Review. Because that's what comes to mind when you think of the president of the Harvard Law Review -- "goofy anti-American punk."
> 
> 
> 
> Regardless, your hallucinations don't actually answer the question why he would tell one publication he was born in Hawaii but then turn around and tell another publication he was born in Kenya. Nonsensically framing him as a "goofy anti-American punk" is really an excuse to not answer a question for which you obviously have no answer.
> 
> And speaking of non-answers .... last time I'll ask before assuming your fear of the answer is preventing you from answering...
> 
> What do you think the difference is between a biography and an autobiography?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Sure it does. He was trying out different narratives to see which ones were better accepted by his targeted peer group, ie anti-American academics.  He was pretty clear about this is some of the excerpts from his autobiography.
> 
> 
> 2. A biography is a book written about someone. An Autobiography is a book written about someone, written by that person.  Neither of these fit the "biographic sketch" of a few paragraphs done for the client list in a booklet of authors for a  literary agency .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "bio" is short for "biography," which as you point out is written by someone about someone else.
> 
> And "bio" was your term for that pamphlet. So not only do you know he didn't write it, his own publisher said non-athlete clients "almost never" wrote their own bios and their editor said Obama didn't tell her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> Leaving you stuck with nothing but your own hallucinogenic conspiries.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. What are the odds that she would incorrectly guess what country he was from, and it just happened to be where his dad was from?
> 
> 2. It is not credible to me, that she remembers making such a minor error, twenty years after the fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who said she guessed?? Maybe she was just mistaken.
> 
> And why wouldn't she recall the work she had done, recalling it only when the issue rose to national discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Odd mistake to make. And odd that she picked the country of his father, as where he was from. Seems more like the choice of a young man with father issues, instead of a random mistake.
> 
> 
> 2. Because it was an unimportant piece of writing that would have taken MINUTES to complete, among YEARS of similar writing, and she remembers it well enough twenty years after the fact to know she did it wrong? NOT CREDIBLE.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have a friend who proudly showed me her Punahou yearbook when Obama became president, to show me a picture of Obama in it. Though he wasn't in her class and she didn't really know him, and hadn't thought of him since, when she learned he went to the same school as her, she looked for him, and found him, in her yearbook. Seems perfectly reasonable that *after* there was national discussion about a bio about the president written by the former publishing company for which she had once worked, she would have recognized her work on the new president of the U.S. being splashed all over the Internet.
> 
> Your silly inability to grasp that is beyond rediculous.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Maybe.
> 
> But it is not credible that she remembers writing that, well enough to recall making the mistake. Not such a little piece of writing, among some many years of work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What else could it have been other than a mistake when she sees Obama was born in Hawaii but the pamphlet she edited about him says he was born in Kenya?
> 
> The knots you wacky conspiracy nuts tie yourselves into just to maintain your debunked delusions is fucking hysterical.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She takes the blame to avoid the rage of people like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In typical rightarded conspiracy nut fashion, you make no sense.
> 
> Then why would she risk the potential rage from folks like you by saying anything at all? Again, she had a third option had Obama told her that -- to stay quiet and say nothing at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Because we are not the asshole mob.
> 
> 2. Quiet would not have been enough for you people, and you know it.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would not have voted for Herman Cain. I would have. Fuck you, you Communist turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I refuse to vote for people who I believe will make our country worse should they win.
Click to expand...



Was it you, or the other lefty that was pretending that the republicans that supported other primary candiates, were Evul Wacists?


----------



## Correll

seems time for this


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed she could remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what dates would be off?...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dates from Father and Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have proof about this.
Click to expand...

LOL

You're a fucking loon. 

*"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."*

You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.

*"I never claimed she could remember that."*

Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?

*"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."*

So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.

*"The dates from Father and Son."*

There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.

*"I never claimed to have proof about this."*

LOL

Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.


----------



## 22lcidw

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
Click to expand...

It is Progs who destroy women and African Americans who are Republican. They must. For more women and African Americans would become Republican.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed she could remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what dates would be off?...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dates from Father and Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have proof about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking loon.
> 
> *"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."*
> 
> You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.
> 
> *"I never claimed she could remember that."*
> 
> Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?
Click to expand...



She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.






> *"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."*
> 
> So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.




It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?

THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.




> *"The dates from Father and Son."*
> 
> There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.



You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"




> *"I never claimed to have proof about this."*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.



Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory. 

You raving lunatic.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> 3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?


Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.

To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL

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

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

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would not have voted for Herman Cain. I would have. Fuck you, you Communist turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I refuse to vote for people who I believe will make our country worse should they win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was it you, or the other lefty that was pretending that the republicans that supported other primary candiates, were Evul Wacists?
Click to expand...

No idea what you're babbling about. Pull the other one..


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.
> 
> To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.
Click to expand...




1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites. 

2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting.  IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.

3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.


4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.


5.  Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
Click to expand...




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


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


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


You lose, loser.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marion Morrison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You would not have voted for Herman Cain. I would have. Fuck you, you Communist turd.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I refuse to vote for people who I believe will make our country worse should they win.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Was it you, or the other lefty that was pretending that the republicans that supported other primary candiates, were Evul Wacists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No idea what you're babbling about. Pull the other one..
Click to expand...




 It not credible that you didn't see that one. NO matter. This debate is over. ALl you have left is the attempt so bury the thread in meaningless garbage or to try to get it locked.


Your little fantasy of Evul Wacism has been debunked.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


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


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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed she could remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what dates would be off?...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dates from Father and Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have proof about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking loon.
> 
> *"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."*
> 
> You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.
> 
> *"I never claimed she could remember that."*
> 
> Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."*
> 
> So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?
> 
> THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The dates from Father and Son."*
> 
> There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I never claimed to have proof about this."*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.
> 
> You raving lunatic.
Click to expand...

*"She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse."*

Says you, a conspiracy nut. Still incapable of understanding if she was in fear of any retribution by anyone, she would have said nothing at all. Again, no one knew who she was until she raised her hand and took responsibility for editing that bio.

*"It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact? THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me."*

It's easy to remember what you wrote about someone when that person you wrote about becomes the president.

*"You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"*

Again, there were no dates in the articles. There were names (they were the same) and there was education (they were the same). Reading about Barack Obama being from Kenya and then going to Harvard (with no dates mentioned) can easily lead one to think it was the president, and not his father, who was from Kenya.

*"Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory."*

Suggesting that when all the evidence and common sense points to the contrary, yet you still b'lieve your conspiracy nonsense, is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.

*"You raving lunatic."*

Fortunately for me -- this observation comes from a delusional conspiracy nut.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
Click to expand...


A conflict in interests does not require that. 


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

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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.
> 
> To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.
> 
> 2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting.  IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.
> 
> 3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.
> 
> 
> 4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.
> 
> 
> 5.  Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.
Click to expand...

Care for a selection of fine cheeses with that whine?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.
> 
> To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.
> 
> 2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting.  IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.
> 
> 3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.
> 
> 
> 4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.
> 
> 
> 5.  Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.
Click to expand...

Oh, for fuck's sake ... even with affirmative action, blacks and hispanics are still underrepresented. White are not discriminated against.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed she could remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what dates would be off?...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dates from Father and Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have proof about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking loon.
> 
> *"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."*
> 
> You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.
> 
> *"I never claimed she could remember that."*
> 
> Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."*
> 
> So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?
> 
> THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The dates from Father and Son."*
> 
> There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I never claimed to have proof about this."*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.
> 
> You raving lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse."*
> 
> Says you, a conspiracy nut. Still incapable of understanding if she was in fear of any retribution by anyone, she would have said nothing at all. Again, no one knew who she was until she raised her hand and took responsibility for editing that bio.
Click to expand...



A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT.




> *"It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact? THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me."*
> 
> It's easy to remember what you wrote about someone when that person you wrote about becomes the president.




So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?

Memory does not work like that.


> *"You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"*
> 
> Again, there were no dates in the articles. There were names (they were the same) and there was education (they were the same). Reading about Barack Obama being from Kenya and then going to Harvard (with no dates mentioned) can easily lead one to think it was the president, and not his father, who was from Kenya.




Dates on the father's information that you were suggesting led to the mistake.  I would think that such data would be stored very differently and not with more recent students.



> *"Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory."*
> 
> Suggesting that when all the evidence and common sense points to the contrary, yet you still b'lieve your conspiracy nonsense, is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.



The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing.




> *"You raving lunatic."*
> 
> Fortunately for me -- this observation comes from a delusional conspiracy nut.




You are raving.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.
> 
> 
> I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.
> 
> 
> You lose, loser.
Click to expand...

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

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.
> 
> To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.
> 
> 2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting.  IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.
> 
> 3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.
> 
> 
> 4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.
> 
> 
> 5.  Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Care for a selection of fine cheeses with that whine?
Click to expand...



Your inability to support your position is noted. 


It is not surprising. INdeed, liberals almost never even try to support their positions with actual arguments.



You support anti-white discrimination, you are an anti-white racist.


Your supposed concerns about Evul Wacism, is only a front to bash your enemies with.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.
> 
> To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.
> 
> 2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting.  IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.
> 
> 3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.
> 
> 
> 4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.
> 
> 
> 5.  Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ... even with affirmative action, blacks and hispanics are still underrepresented. White are not discriminated against.
> 
> View attachment 318416
Click to expand...




Yes, minority families and minorities schools do such a poor job, that minority students, well black and brown students, even with massive and widespread discrimination in their favor, still end up with an education gap.


But that does not change the fact that the anti-white discrimination is happening.


And indeed, the point was not so much that it is happening, (we all know it is) but that grumble supports such anti-white racism.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.
> 
> 
> I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.
> 
> 
> You lose, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
Click to expand...




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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
Click to expand...



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

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



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


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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed she could remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what dates would be off?...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dates from Father and Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have proof about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking loon.
> 
> *"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."*
> 
> You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.
> 
> *"I never claimed she could remember that."*
> 
> Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."*
> 
> So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?
> 
> THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The dates from Father and Son."*
> 
> There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I never claimed to have proof about this."*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.
> 
> You raving lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse."*
> 
> Says you, a conspiracy nut. Still incapable of understanding if she was in fear of any retribution by anyone, she would have said nothing at all. Again, no one knew who she was until she raised her hand and took responsibility for editing that bio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact? THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me."*
> 
> It's easy to remember what you wrote about someone when that person you wrote about becomes the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?
> 
> Memory does not work like that.
> 
> 
> 
> *"You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"*
> 
> Again, there were no dates in the articles. There were names (they were the same) and there was education (they were the same). Reading about Barack Obama being from Kenya and then going to Harvard (with no dates mentioned) can easily lead one to think it was the president, and not his father, who was from Kenya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dates on the father's information that you were suggesting led to the mistake.  I would think that such data would be stored very differently and not with more recent students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory."*
> 
> Suggesting that when all the evidence and common sense points to the contrary, yet you still b'lieve your conspiracy nonsense, is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"You raving lunatic."*
> 
> Fortunately for me -- this observation comes from a delusional conspiracy nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are raving.
Click to expand...

*"A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT. "*

It's based solely on your belief that even you admit is not founded in proof.

*"So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?"*

LOLOL

It was her work. Why would she not recall it when she saw it some 20 years later?? 

I've seen code I've written that far back and can recognize it was my work and what inspired it.

You think other peoples' brains don't function normally because yours doesn't.

*"The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing."*

It's not convincing to conspiracy nuts perhaps, but to rational folks, it is. Especially since her boss at that time said non-athletes almost never wrote their own bios ... and ... nearly everything in his bio appears to come from newspaper articles .... and those news paper articles talk about Barack Obama being from Kenya and going to Harvard .... and because newspaper articles prior to that bio talk about Barack Obama (the son) being born in Hawaii.

While your own explanation for why Obama would tell the press he was from Hawaii but then tell a publicist he was from Kenya was built upon your own made up delusion that the president of the Harvard Law Review was really just a _"goofy anti-American punk."_


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.
> 
> To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.
> 
> 2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting.  IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.
> 
> 3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.
> 
> 
> 4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.
> 
> 
> 5.  Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ... even with affirmative action, blacks and hispanics are still underrepresented. White are not discriminated against.
> 
> View attachment 318416
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minority families and minorities schools do such a poor job, that minority students, well black and brown students, even with massive and widespread discrimination in their favor, still end up with an education gap.
> 
> 
> But that does not change the fact that the anti-white discrimination is happening.
> 
> 
> And indeed, the point was not so much that it is happening, (we all know it is) but that grumble supports such anti-white racism.
Click to expand...

^^^ Spits a raging racist.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed she could remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what dates would be off?...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dates from Father and Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have proof about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking loon.
> 
> *"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."*
> 
> You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.
> 
> *"I never claimed she could remember that."*
> 
> Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."*
> 
> So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?
> 
> THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The dates from Father and Son."*
> 
> There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I never claimed to have proof about this."*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.
> 
> You raving lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse."*
> 
> Says you, a conspiracy nut. Still incapable of understanding if she was in fear of any retribution by anyone, she would have said nothing at all. Again, no one knew who she was until she raised her hand and took responsibility for editing that bio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact? THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me."*
> 
> It's easy to remember what you wrote about someone when that person you wrote about becomes the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?
> 
> Memory does not work like that.
> 
> 
> 
> *"You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"*
> 
> Again, there were no dates in the articles. There were names (they were the same) and there was education (they were the same). Reading about Barack Obama being from Kenya and then going to Harvard (with no dates mentioned) can easily lead one to think it was the president, and not his father, who was from Kenya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dates on the father's information that you were suggesting led to the mistake.  I would think that such data would be stored very differently and not with more recent students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory."*
> 
> Suggesting that when all the evidence and common sense points to the contrary, yet you still b'lieve your conspiracy nonsense, is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"You raving lunatic."*
> 
> Fortunately for me -- this observation comes from a delusional conspiracy nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are raving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT. "*
> 
> It's based solely on your belief that even you admit is not founded in proof.
> 
> *"So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?"*
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was her work. Why would she not recall it when she saw it some 20 years later??
> 
> I've seen code I've written that far back and can recognize it was my work and what inspired it.
> 
> You think other peoples' brains don't function normally because yours doesn't.
> 
> *"The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing."*
> 
> It's not convincing to conspiracy nuts perhaps, but to rational folks, it is. Especially since her boss at that time said non-athletes almost never wrote their own bios ... and ... nearly everything in his bio appears to come from newspaper articles .... and those news paper articles talk about Barack Obama being from Kenya and going to Harvard .... and because newspaper articles prior to that bio talk about Barack Obama (the son) being born in Hawaii.
> 
> While your own explanation for why Obama would tell the press he was from Hawaii but then tell a publicist he was from Kenya was built upon your own made up delusion that the president of the Harvard Law Review was really just a _"goofy anti-American punk."_
Click to expand...




It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize  his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY


He was and is an anti-American punk.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.
> 
> 
> I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.
> 
> 
> You lose, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are what you insisted on not paying attention to, because you just know, Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> You demonstrated your pathetic-ness, over and over again.
Click to expand...

LOL

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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 3. I will give an example of one. It is a white interest to NOT be discriminated against in Ivy League University admissions. Do you support equality of opportunity for whites in Ivy League Admissions, vs discrimination in favor of blacks?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretty sure we already covered this. I'm fine with the idea of employing affirmative action to help historically marginalized minorities catch up to whites in terms of admissions. I also leave it to the schools themselves to determine how that pans out given they stay within legal bounds (i.e. the government is also involved since we are a nation of laws, nots tyrants). If my kid was passed up to give a minority student a leg up I'd understand and tell them to keep trying. I'm just one one white person though. I would never presume to speak for all of us nor imagine us having any "interest" in excluding interests expressed by minorities. We're already comprise the majority. We rule. Why be a crybaby about it? No excuse.
> 
> To be liberal is to have empathy and compassion for the plight of others. That's me. I'm also conservative in that I'm thrifty as all get out so require very little to keep going. I see no point in going to an Ivy League College these days, for example. Not my interest. Everything I want to know has only been a few keystrokes away for a long time now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Got it. YOu support discrimination against whites.
> 
> 2. Your pretense of caring about"laws" is just gaslighting.  IN reality, the government requires this type of discrimination because any hint of unequal outcome can result in a costly and embarrassing investigation and lawsuits by the government. So universities all cover their ass by massively discriminating in favor of blacks at the expense of whites.
> 
> 3. And the type of discrimination is led by people like you, liberals. Happy to discriminate against whites, especially poor rural or conservative whites.
> 
> 
> 4. You denial that such discrimination is not a group interest, is sophist nonsense.
> 
> 
> 5.  Supporting discrimination against whites is not compassion or empathy. It is racism and bigotry and hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, for fuck's sake ... even with affirmative action, blacks and hispanics are still underrepresented. White are not discriminated against.
> 
> View attachment 318416
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, minority families and minorities schools do such a poor job, that minority students, well black and brown students, even with massive and widespread discrimination in their favor, still end up with an education gap.
> 
> 
> But that does not change the fact that the anti-white discrimination is happening.
> 
> 
> And indeed, the point was not so much that it is happening, (we all know it is) but that grumble supports such anti-white racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ Spits a raging racist.
Click to expand...




We've established in this thread, that your lefties use of "racism"


is better to be called, "Evul Wacism", to fit your level of maturity.



Could you repost your attack, and instead of saying "Racism", say, "Evul Wacism"?


YOu know, like a child with a speech impediment.


A stupid child.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.
> 
> 
> I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.
> 
> 
> You lose, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are what you insisted on not paying attention to, because you just know, Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> You demonstrated your pathetic-ness, over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a _"ginned up media scandal"_ where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.
Click to expand...



Correct. THe GOP voters were pretty happy with him, until that. As though his being black was no a factor at all


Which is the point in this thread, which is all about your lefty belief in Evul Wacism.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
Click to expand...

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

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

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

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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.
> 
> 
> I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.
> 
> 
> You lose, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are what you insisted on not paying attention to, because you just know, Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> You demonstrated your pathetic-ness, over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a _"ginned up media scandal"_ where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. THe GOP voters were pretty happy with him, until that. As though his being black was no a factor at all
> 
> 
> Which is the point in this thread, which is all about your lefty belief in Evul Wacism.
Click to expand...

But of course his race was a factor as evidenced by the media _"ginning"_ up a scandal against white Impeached Trump just 4 years later and the GOP embraced him. It was the black candidate they couldn't bring upon themselves to forgive.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed she could remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what dates would be off?...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dates from Father and Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have proof about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking loon.
> 
> *"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."*
> 
> You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.
> 
> *"I never claimed she could remember that."*
> 
> Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."*
> 
> So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?
> 
> THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The dates from Father and Son."*
> 
> There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I never claimed to have proof about this."*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.
> 
> You raving lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse."*
> 
> Says you, a conspiracy nut. Still incapable of understanding if she was in fear of any retribution by anyone, she would have said nothing at all. Again, no one knew who she was until she raised her hand and took responsibility for editing that bio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact? THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me."*
> 
> It's easy to remember what you wrote about someone when that person you wrote about becomes the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?
> 
> Memory does not work like that.
> 
> 
> 
> *"You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"*
> 
> Again, there were no dates in the articles. There were names (they were the same) and there was education (they were the same). Reading about Barack Obama being from Kenya and then going to Harvard (with no dates mentioned) can easily lead one to think it was the president, and not his father, who was from Kenya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dates on the father's information that you were suggesting led to the mistake.  I would think that such data would be stored very differently and not with more recent students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory."*
> 
> Suggesting that when all the evidence and common sense points to the contrary, yet you still b'lieve your conspiracy nonsense, is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"You raving lunatic."*
> 
> Fortunately for me -- this observation comes from a delusional conspiracy nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are raving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT. "*
> 
> It's based solely on your belief that even you admit is not founded in proof.
> 
> *"So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?"*
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was her work. Why would she not recall it when she saw it some 20 years later??
> 
> I've seen code I've written that far back and can recognize it was my work and what inspired it.
> 
> You think other peoples' brains don't function normally because yours doesn't.
> 
> *"The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing."*
> 
> It's not convincing to conspiracy nuts perhaps, but to rational folks, it is. Especially since her boss at that time said non-athletes almost never wrote their own bios ... and ... nearly everything in his bio appears to come from newspaper articles .... and those news paper articles talk about Barack Obama being from Kenya and going to Harvard .... and because newspaper articles prior to that bio talk about Barack Obama (the son) being born in Hawaii.
> 
> While your own explanation for why Obama would tell the press he was from Hawaii but then tell a publicist he was from Kenya was built upon your own made up delusion that the president of the Harvard Law Review was really just a _"goofy anti-American punk."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize  his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY
> 
> 
> He was and is an anti-American punk.
Click to expand...

*"It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize  his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY"*

You're truly fucking demented.  Yes, you made that up or you read it on some loony site that made it up. It didn't come from his books. 

*"He was and is an anti-American punk."*

Slobbers a raging racist conspiracy nut.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful"  and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".
> 
> 
> Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".
> 
> THat is not fair to whites.
Click to expand...


There is a distinct difference between "deference" and "consideration".

Do you understand that  difference?

Grumble clearly stated the following:

CORRELL:
Because you defer to them based on their race.

Grumble
Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.





Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful"  and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".
> 
> 
> Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".
> 
> THat is not fair to whites.
Click to expand...


There is a distinct difference between "deference" and "consideration" .

Do you understand it? If not, I will gladly illustrate the difference for you, free of charge.

Grumble VERY clearly stated that as part of the majority, he feels "morally and patriotically" obligated "TO CONSIDER" the interests of the minority.

Go back and re read his words, and you will notice that it was YOU who used the term "DEFER". 

Not him.

And In your typical zeal to find any shred of what you percieve as anti white bias or victimhood, anywhere and everywhere, you overlooked (possibly on purpose) what he actually stated, and substituted what you WANTED  to read.

That is quite childish on your part, IMO.


----------



## katsteve2012

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
Click to expand...


White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns. 

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

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

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

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

In fact, the "Lunatic in Chief" has or had hotel/casino interests in Vegas as well at one time


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.
> 
> 
> I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.
> 
> 
> You lose, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are what you insisted on not paying attention to, because you just know, Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> You demonstrated your pathetic-ness, over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a _"ginned up media scandal"_ where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

katsteve2012 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Say what?! I live 3 hours from Vegas and go to chsmpionship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> In fact, the "Lunatic in Chief" has or had hotel/casino interests in Vegas as well.
Click to expand...

I miss the "Informative" rating.


----------



## Grumblenuts

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful"  and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".
> 
> 
> Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".
> 
> THat is not fair to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a distinct difference between "deference" and "consideration".
> 
> Do you understand that  difference?
> 
> Grumble clearly stated the following:
> 
> CORRELL:
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Grumble
> Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Because you defer to them based on their race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Being an identifiable member of the powerful majority makes it incumbent upon me (morally and patriotically) to consider minority interests before worrying overmuch about those of people like me.
> 
> 
> 
> All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are conflating rights and interests. I would and do defend the rights of all people.
> 
> 
> When you want tell white people to defer to the interests of black people, because "majority/minority you are violating the right of the white people to their interests and equal protection before the law and equal rights to the political process.
> 
> 
> YOu are the racist here, not I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So considering minority interests, particularly while discussing something explicitly about that minority, is racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is. After all, in the minds of some individuals, considering the interests of minorities(specifically blacks)is an act of being "anti white", because the white population has "sacrificed so much for blacks", and blacks are "ungrateful"  and must realize that when a black person experiences any success, it was likely at the expense of a noble, unselfish white person.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you need to lie about my position, is your brain telling you that you are in the wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not a lie. And you have said those words in a thinly veiled way before.
> 
> .....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Except I have not said those words, before. As you tacitly admit with your weasel words, "thinly veiled".
> 
> 
> Grumble's position is that we white should defer to blacks, because "minority".
> 
> THat is not fair to whites.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is a distinct difference between "deference" and "consideration" .
> 
> Do you understand it? If not, I will gladly illustrate the difference for you, free of charge.
> 
> Grumble VERY clearly stated that as part of the majority, he feels "morally and patriotically" obligated "TO CONSIDER" the interests of the minority.
> 
> Go back and re read his words, and you will notice that it was YOU who used the term "DEFER".
> 
> Not him.
> 
> And In your typical zeal to find any shred of what you percieve as anti white bias or victimhood, anywhere and everywhere, you overlooked (possibly on purpose) what he actually stated, and substituted what you WANTED  to read.
> 
> That is quite childish on your part, IMO.
Click to expand...

Thank you for that. To be fair, I have repeatedly said I'd "defer" to IM2, blacks, or minority members here or there meaning being deferential toward. A tad more than simply being considerate of, but an important and necessary tad nonetheless.  I try to be considerate of everyone. I'm proudly deferential to any minority voices where their input clearly best represents the most impacted people in the room. It is indeed my civic duty.. as that Jefferson quote makes plain.


----------



## Grumblenuts

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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
Click to expand...



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


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


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


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


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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.
> 
> 
> I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.
> 
> 
> You lose, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are what you insisted on not paying attention to, because you just know, Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> You demonstrated your pathetic-ness, over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a _"ginned up media scandal"_ where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. THe GOP voters were pretty happy with him, until that. As though his being black was no a factor at all
> 
> 
> Which is the point in this thread, which is all about your lefty belief in Evul Wacism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But of course his race was a factor as evidenced by the media _"ginning"_ up a scandal against white Impeached Trump just 4 years later and the GOP embraced him. It was the black candidate they couldn't bring upon themselves to forgive.
Click to expand...



That is a nice assumption you have there. Now, how will you support it, or do you expect that when you call cry "Evul Wacism", it is supposed to just be believed, because, "Evul Wacism"?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And hysterically, while at the same time you express doubt she could recall Obama not telling her he was born in Hawaii, you claim she can recall Obama telling her he was born in Kenya.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed she could remember that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as what I did at work on this day in 2000 -- I didn't. See how recollection works?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And what dates would be off?...".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The dates from Father and Son.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But now we all see you have no proof, none at all other than your own delusions, that Obama told her he was born in Kenya -- meaning your claim Obama lied is bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never claimed to have proof about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You're a fucking loon.
> 
> *"YOu argued against a point I never made. Either you got me confused with someone in your room, or the voices in your head."*
> 
> You're the one claiming Obama told her he was born in Hawaii -- but that claim of yours comes from nowhere but your own tacitly admitted delusions.
> 
> *"I never claimed she could remember that."*
> 
> Of course you did, you just don't know what you're saying because you're so fucked in the head. You said Obama told her he was born in Kenya and expressed don't she could even recall writing it. How could she deny it if she didn't even recall writing it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I don't find it credible that she remembers that little piece of work so long afterwards."*
> 
> So? You're a conspiracy nut who has to convince himself of the implausible when it's convenient to squeeze it into your nutty conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact?
> 
> THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"The dates from Father and Son."*
> 
> There were no such dates in the articles. Just the mention that they both went to Harvard and they are both named Barack Obama. One saying he was born in the small Kenyan village of Alego and studied at Harvard. It's an easy mistake to make think that was about Barack Obama II.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"I never claimed to have proof about this."*
> 
> LOL
> 
> Which is why you're a crazy conspiracy nut. You believe conspiracies without proof just cause you like the way they feelz.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory.
> 
> You raving lunatic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"She denied it to appease the lefty mob. She lied to avoid looking like she is taking a stand against vile people like you, who like to destroy people, if not worse."*
> 
> Says you, a conspiracy nut. Still incapable of understanding if she was in fear of any retribution by anyone, she would have said nothing at all. Again, no one knew who she was until she raised her hand and took responsibility for editing that bio.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is improbably to think that some one could remember writing a few paragraphs, twenty years after the fact? THat is not improbable. YOu are the crazy person here, not me."*
> 
> It's easy to remember what you wrote about someone when that person you wrote about becomes the president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?
> 
> Memory does not work like that.
> 
> 
> 
> *"You moron. YOU presented as a possible explanation that she might have gotten the Father and Son mixed up and that might be the reasons for the "mistake" My reference to dates was that the Father and the Son would have been twenty to thirty years different.  It seems unlikely that was the cause of the "mistake"*
> 
> Again, there were no dates in the articles. There were names (they were the same) and there was education (they were the same). Reading about Barack Obama being from Kenya and then going to Harvard (with no dates mentioned) can easily lead one to think it was the president, and not his father, who was from Kenya.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Dates on the father's information that you were suggesting led to the mistake.  I would think that such data would be stored very differently and not with more recent students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Suggesting that a man is listed as being born in Kenya, because he told the person writing the piece, that that is where he was born, is hardly a conspiracy theory."*
> 
> Suggesting that when all the evidence and common sense points to the contrary, yet you still b'lieve your conspiracy nonsense, is the very definition of a conspiracy theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"You raving lunatic."*
> 
> Fortunately for me -- this observation comes from a delusional conspiracy nut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are raving.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"A "conspiracy" of one. With no need for any communication of her intent to lie outside of her head. That is such a wild and crazy conspiracy theory. NOT. "*
> 
> It's based solely on your belief that even you admit is not founded in proof.
> 
> *"So, decades after the fact, you find out that a factoid you paid not much attention to at the time and long ago forgot, you find out is actually historically important and that magically makes the memory come back?"*
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was her work. Why would she not recall it when she saw it some 20 years later??
> 
> I've seen code I've written that far back and can recognize it was my work and what inspired it.
> 
> You think other peoples' brains don't function normally because yours doesn't.
> 
> *"The only "evidence" that he did not tell her, is her not credible words. That is not convincing."*
> 
> It's not convincing to conspiracy nuts perhaps, but to rational folks, it is. Especially since her boss at that time said non-athletes almost never wrote their own bios ... and ... nearly everything in his bio appears to come from newspaper articles .... and those news paper articles talk about Barack Obama being from Kenya and going to Harvard .... and because newspaper articles prior to that bio talk about Barack Obama (the son) being born in Hawaii.
> 
> While your own explanation for why Obama would tell the press he was from Hawaii but then tell a publicist he was from Kenya was built upon your own made up delusion that the president of the Harvard Law Review was really just a _"goofy anti-American punk."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize  his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY
> 
> 
> He was and is an anti-American punk.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"It's been a while since I read the excerpts but he desire to emphasize  his "exotic" background as opposed to his "white mother" was not something I made up, but something I read, from his AUTOBIOGRAPHY"*
> 
> You're truly fucking demented.  Yes, you made that up or you read it on some loony site that made it up. It didn't come from his books.
> 
> *"He was and is an anti-American punk."*
> 
> Slobbers a raging racist conspiracy nut.
Click to expand...


The "him playing up his background to be more cool, was from his book. My conclusion was that he was an Anti-American punk. 


You've made a claim. You've supported it by calling me a "evul wacist", like an ill mannered and retarded child.


As supporting arguments go, that is you failing. Miserably.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...




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


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

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


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


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

lol!!!


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "All people" and you cry "white interests"?
> 
> 
> Dude.
> 
> 
> This thread was created for the intent of race baiting.
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed. What are "black interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whites have white interests and blacks have black interests and you know this, why press for clarification?
> 
> You see, to me, by asking the question as to what white interests are, the implication seems to be that if a white person says "white interests", he is being either selfish, racist, or both.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Since the inception of this country "white interests" were considered American interests -- if those interests ran counter and to the detriment of let's say "white women" or women in general-- oh well...... fuck em....
> 
> However, that doesn't mean women working to bring about policy outcomes in their interests are "ANTI WHITE" or "ANTI AMERICAN" does it?
> 
> Do you refer to the women's suffrage movement as anti white or anti american??
> 
> However it seems as tho when black folks work to politically bring about policy outcomes in their interests - which in many cases means working to eliminate the system that was put in place against them.....those conservatives who supported that system are more likely to call that being anti-white....when in reality, it is being Pro-American.....Anti-American would be that system we are eliminating.....that system that "conservatives" whine about when they see it being eliminated....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the context of the above posts, I made no comments on blacks interests being inherently "anti-white"or "anti-American".
> 
> I just referred to the idea of all people having an equal right to have interests and to seek to have the represented in the discussion of policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OMG! Is that it? Holy shit! At long last? Your definition of "white interests"!
> "all people" Wow, so little "white" in it! So little "black"!
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble disagrees. He wants to just defer to blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Uh huh. Pull the other one, CryMaster. This one's gone flaccid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is not a definition of white interests but a statement expressing my support for all people to have the right to have interests and to see them represented in policy debates.
> 
> I mean, I was very clear there. I'm not sure how you managed to get confused.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Damn, now that one's gone flaccid.. okay, pull the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Said the man that saw the phrase "all people have an equal right.."
> 
> 
> and went, "WOW, Your definition of "white interests!"
> 
> 
> Dude. What the hell do you even think you are doing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now the other one again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread was started to race bait. By trying to make the case that the reason for the lack of republican black presidents was Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> I have crushed that argument, and all the libs that tried making it.
> 
> 
> Now you are down to trying to dance and twist, to confuse the issue with semantics and willful obtuseness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Perfect. Now the neck.. Not so hard though..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your attempt to distract from your crushing humiliation is noted.
> 
> 
> I am sorry that we were unable to look at more examples, but the examples of POwell and Cain were enough to break you.
> 
> 
> You libs like to pretend that you are Heroes, fighting Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> But deep down, you know you are just partisan hacks, who like to have an excuse to be rude to people you disagree with .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Jesus! Not so fast and jerky. Neck again..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy I have crushed you lefties. But not that happy.
> 
> Your weirdness is just another way of trying to distract from how completely your position of "Evul Wacism" has been crushed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Much better. Left leg..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No one doubts that you libs are creepy wierdos or dishonest about when you lose a debate, or that you work to get threads locked to hide your shame and your inability to support your arguments.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What debate did he lose??
> 
> Certainly not about rampant racism among the right. Let's not forget, the best you could do was to show about a quarter of the GOP is not too racist to elect a black person as president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We've been calling it "Evul Wacism" because it is nothing but a childish fantasy of you guys.
> 
> 
> And yes, you lefties have totally lost it. YOur position is based on ignoring evidence and inventing unlikely scenarios, all the while being smug assholes about it.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are emotionally immature partisan hacks, who like to pretend you are cool Heroes, fighting against Evul Wacism, because it makes you feel good about yourself and gives you an excuse to be smug assholes to people who disagree with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOLOL
> 
> What you call _"nothing but childish fantasy"_ is actually the reality that the GOP has never nominated, no less elected, a black candidate for president. And while there may be some slight differences on some issues among all GOP candidates, perhaps some differences on work or military experience, or some differences on education, there's only one glaring difference between black candidates and white candidates -- the color of their skin.
> 
> And even in your best effort, you could find no more than about a quarter of the GOP that would nominate a black candidate. And none on the horizon for possibly the next 4 elections according to you.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We have gone over the reasons that some very popular gop candidates did not get elected, and it was not because of Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> We covered that in great depth and detail, and your going back to it at this late date, is just the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion used a political propaganda tactic.
> 
> 
> I totally won this debate, as you demonstrate with such sad and dishonest tactics.
> 
> 
> You lose, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you claim it's not because of racism. But the facts belie your hollow denials.
> 
> But g'head .... keep tellin' yourself you won this debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The facts are what you insisted on not paying attention to, because you just know, Evul Wacism.
> 
> 
> You demonstrated your pathetic-ness, over and over again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your explanation for why the GOP turned their back on Cain was because of a _"ginned up media scandal"_ where women were lining up to accuse him of sexual improprieties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ginned up because Cain was Republican while black.  If he were a Democrat they would be Blessed Protectors of "white interests."
Click to expand...


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


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


I have ever seen. 


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


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




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


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


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


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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
> 
> 
> And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
> 
> 
> If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
> 
> 
> THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
Click to expand...

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

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

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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it this way. Say an entire  football team challenged (forced actually) a couple chess players to "play" a game of football. One of the chess players complains "Hey,we can't play without pads, helmets, and all that shit you've got on!" Now, yes, they obviously have a right to that equal protection, but it's their right to free speech that enables them to voice those interests in the first place. That must be protected first and foremost,.. i.e. "defer"red to.. "to violate would be oppression."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IN that example I would side with the chess players, both in their right to speech and to have "equal protection".
> 
> 
> Your stated position is to defer to whoever the black guys are, and indeed, that the white guys, don't even have an interest in having the pads, because how can a group have an interest?
> 
> 
> Looking at that, some one who just got here, would think that I was strawmaning you.
> 
> 
> BUt, I'm not. THat is your stated position(s).
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

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


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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


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


Whites already "work together" here _by default_ whether locally or as a whole. Like it or not, we "_rule_." Only those _not ruling_ have to "organize" in order to be treated fairly, i.e. play on the same level.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
> 
> 
> And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
> 
> 
> If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
> 
> 
> THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't.  Some blacks want them, some don't.  Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.
> 
> It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
> 
> You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
Click to expand...



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


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

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


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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you fucked up royally as usual because that's not a white issue.
Click to expand...



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


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll put it this way. Say an entire  football team challenged (forced actually) a couple chess players to "play" a game of football. One of the chess players complains "Hey,we can't play without pads, helmets, and all that shit you've got on!" Now, yes, they obviously have a right to that equal protection, but it's their right to free speech that enables them to voice those interests in the first place. That must be protected first and foremost,.. i.e. "defer"red to.. "to violate would be oppression."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IN that example I would side with the chess players, both in their right to speech and to have "equal protection".
> 
> 
> Your stated position is to defer to whoever the black guys are, and indeed, that the white guys, don't even have an interest in having the pads, because how can a group have an interest?
> 
> 
> Looking at that, some one who just got here, would think that I was strawmaning you.
> 
> 
> BUt, I'm not. THat is your stated position(s).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it's a strawman. The only tool in your chest. Where have I suggested white football players don't want pads? All (Americans) would clearly want protective pads while footing balls, either voluntarily or by force. The majority football players not only have them already, they're intent upon using that advantage to aid in their oppression of the minority chess players.
Click to expand...



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


It is an interest to want to have pads too.  


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


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




No, it's not. 




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



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




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



No, it is not. 



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




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


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




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



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

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



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



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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> 
> Whites already "work together" here _by default_ whether locally or as a whole. Like it or not, we "_rule_." Only those _not ruling_ have to "organize" in order to be treated fairly, i.e. play on the same level.
Click to expand...


That makes so little sense it is hard to address.

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


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


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


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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
Click to expand...


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

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

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, simple denial added to your list of tools.. mea culpa.
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
> 
> 
> And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
> 
> 
> If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
> 
> 
> THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't.  Some blacks want them, some don't.  Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.
> 
> It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
> 
> You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
> 
> 
> Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
> 
> The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest,  pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
> 
> 
> So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
Click to expand...

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

Fuck you, ya fucking racist. 

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you fucked up royally as usual because that's not a white issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In this example it is. There is a conflict between what the whites in the area, as as group want, and the indians in the area, as a group want.
> 
> 
> You are the one twisted into a logic pretzel by  your refusal to see something simple and easy.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
> 
> 
> And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
> 
> 
> If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
> 
> 
> THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't.  Some blacks want them, some don't.  Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.
> 
> It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
> 
> You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
> 
> 
> Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
> 
> The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest,  pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
> 
> 
> So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."*_
> 
> Fuck you, ya fucking racist.
Click to expand...



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





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




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

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






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




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




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



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

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




> That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.
> 
> If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.



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

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, simple denial added to your list of tools.. mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. If you cut the explanations, I guess you can pretend that.
Click to expand...

Fine. Your "explanations":
"You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture." 
Credit due for this tool as well - waving frantically at nothing in particular, mea culpa. 
"because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism."
Okay, add name calling if you must. May as well add childish projection now as well. Mea culpa..


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you fucked up royally as usual because that's not a white issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> In this example it is. There is a conflict between what the whites in the area, as as group want, and the indians in the area, as a group want.
> 
> 
> You are the one twisted into a logic pretzel by  your refusal to see something simple and easy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fucking racist, there's no such "white interest" because there are also whites in areas where casinos exist who want the casinos.
Click to expand...



A few individuals  acting contrary to the wishes and'or interests of the group, does not mean the group does not exist.

Or do you believe that Candence Owens being a staunch Republican, means that blacks don't exist as a group or have group interests that Republican policy might be against?


Your reasoning and logic, is stupid as fucking hell.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun is telling you true -> "not a white issue." It's not the particular intent or "interest" of any old "white person" that matters. The effect of our majority as a whole is racist. That's a given.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Institution racism lives. One can't just wish it away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture. You are "wishing that away" because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's what "tyranny of the majority" literally means.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay, simple denial added to your list of tools.. mea culpa.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. If you cut the explanations, I guess you can pretend that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fine. Your "explanations":
> "You are ignoring generations of work and laws and changing of culture."
> Credit due for this tool as well - waving frantically at nothing in particular, mea culpa.
> "because it undermines your little fantasy of Evul Wasism."
> Okay, add name calling if you must. May as well add childish projection now as well. Mea culpa..
Click to expand...



I addressed all of your points. You addressed none of mine.


you have admitted that you hold different standards for whites and minorities in this nation.


You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.

You have different standards for whites, based on race.


Specifically you think that they should NOT do that, and should just defer to blacks. and presumably any minorities.



This is you clearly supporting anti-white racism. 


ACTUAL RACISM, not the Evul Wacism, that you libs love to accuse people of.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
Click to expand...


1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?

2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?


3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.


Horrors.


Correll said:


> You have different standards for whites, based on race.


Liar. Based on their majority status. You pretending to be that thick will remain laughable no matter how often you repeat this crap.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
Click to expand...





1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.

2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.
> 
> 
> 
> Horrors.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have different standards for whites, based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. Based on their majority status. You pretending to be that thick will remain laughable no matter how often you repeat this crap.
Click to expand...




LOL!!!


A thin rationalization for your race based rules.


SO, are you ready to admit that your pretense of not knowing what "White interests" were, was  to hide your hostility and opposition  to them?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
Click to expand...


1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.

2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.

As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.
> 
> 
> 
> Horrors.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have different standards for whites, based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. Based on their majority status. You pretending to be that thick will remain laughable no matter how often you repeat this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> A thin rationalization for your race based rules.
> 
> 
> SO, are you ready to admit that your pretense of not knowing what "White interests" were, was  to hide your hostility and opposition  to them?
Click to expand...

The only "white interests" I'm aware of are white supremacist interests. If my not crediting them with that shared "interest" is what's been pissing you off so much here just say so.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
Click to expand...




1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.

2. I gave an example. 

3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion. 

4.  Do you understand the example I gave?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You support minorities organizing into groups, to pursue and advance their own interests.
> 
> 
> 
> Horrors.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have different standards for whites, based on race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. Based on their majority status. You pretending to be that thick will remain laughable no matter how often you repeat this crap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL!!!
> 
> 
> A thin rationalization for your race based rules.
> 
> 
> SO, are you ready to admit that your pretense of not knowing what "White interests" were, was  to hide your hostility and opposition  to them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only "white interests" I'm aware of are white supremacist interests. If my not crediting them with that shared "interest" is what's been pissing you off so much here just say so.
Click to expand...



THat is an additional excuse for racist double standard of supporting minority interests and not white interests.

You cry, "Evul Wacism" like a retarded child, and think that makes an argument.


Not going to work this time, grumble.


YOu need to defend your position that is is ok for minorities to organize to advance their interests, but not Whites.


If you can.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
> 
> 
> And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
> 
> 
> If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
> 
> 
> THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't.  Some blacks want them, some don't.  Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.
> 
> It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
> 
> You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
> 
> 
> Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
> 
> The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest,  pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
> 
> 
> So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."*_
> 
> Fuck you, ya fucking racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuan, I've pointed this out to you before. Please use, "Wacist" when you talk like that, to distinguish, your accusations from REAL accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The laws are passed by the local population. The whites in the area might not be formally organized into a white group, but as a group, they have passed laws against gambling. I'm not speaking for anyone, just pointing out their actions.
> 
> Which is "Wacism", not actual racism. So, please use the correct terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "WACIST "lens. Dude, Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? How hard is this? ALL I'M ASKING is that when you make points like retarded child, to write it out, so it looks like a retarded child talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general,  are smarter than you.  They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that nothing what I said is actually "racist".  BUT, you are using actually racist standards in attacking any whites that dare even speak of white interests, while defending and celebrating minorities doing the same.
> 
> And that is why, blacks are drawn to the dems. Because you are willing to serve and advance their interests, even, if not especially at the expense of whites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.
> 
> If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing I 've said here is actually racist of course, you are just a piece of shit asshole motherfucker.
> 
> 2. And any blacks that don't want that type of anti-white racism in policy is welcome in the GOP and/or to be Presidential candidate. It is only a matter of time and you can go fuck yourself, you faggot.
Click to expand...

As always, there is no such "white interest." You only think there is because you're a fucking racist.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
> 
> 
> And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
> 
> 
> If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
> 
> 
> THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't.  Some blacks want them, some don't.  Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.
> 
> It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
> 
> You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
> 
> 
> Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
> 
> The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest,  pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
> 
> 
> So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."*_
> 
> Fuck you, ya fucking racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuan, I've pointed this out to you before. Please use, "Wacist" when you talk like that, to distinguish, your accusations from REAL accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The laws are passed by the local population. The whites in the area might not be formally organized into a white group, but as a group, they have passed laws against gambling. I'm not speaking for anyone, just pointing out their actions.
> 
> Which is "Wacism", not actual racism. So, please use the correct terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "WACIST "lens. Dude, Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? How hard is this? ALL I'M ASKING is that when you make points like retarded child, to write it out, so it looks like a retarded child talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general,  are smarter than you.  They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that nothing what I said is actually "racist".  BUT, you are using actually racist standards in attacking any whites that dare even speak of white interests, while defending and celebrating minorities doing the same.
> 
> And that is why, blacks are drawn to the dems. Because you are willing to serve and advance their interests, even, if not especially at the expense of whites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.
> 
> If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing I 've said here is actually racist of course, you are just a piece of shit asshole motherfucker.
> 
> 2. And any blacks that don't want that type of anti-white racism in policy is welcome in the GOP and/or to be Presidential candidate. It is only a matter of time and you can go fuck yourself, you faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always, there is no such "white interest." You only think there is because you're a fucking racist.
Click to expand...



I challenge you to back up your accusations of Evul Wacism,


and you do so by calling me an Evul Wacist?


Literally, you just demonstrated that you think that calling someone a name, is a supporting argument.


DO you understand now, why I want you to write out your words, like you are a retarded child?


Please start doing that.  It will help people understand who and what you are.


----------



## Grumblenuts

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





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


You support the idea of whites ganging up against Native Americans and somehow imagine you're not being racist?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
Click to expand...


The existence of Indian gaming casinos is certainly not adverse to white interests. 

I live in an area where there are quite a few. In fact, 6 within less than 50 miles, and they are all patronized by a predominantly white clientele, and also employ a predominantly white workforce.


Is there one issue that you can name that SPECIFICALLY relates to the interests of the white population?

That doesn't appear to be a "stupid question", it appears to be  a legitimate question.  If you answered it with just a couple of examples, your belief system might be better understood.

JMO.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
Click to expand...

No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
> 
> 
> And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
> 
> 
> If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
> 
> 
> THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't.  Some blacks want them, some don't.  Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.
> 
> It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
> 
> You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
> 
> 
> Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
> 
> The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest,  pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
> 
> 
> So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."*_
> 
> Fuck you, ya fucking racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuan, I've pointed this out to you before. Please use, "Wacist" when you talk like that, to distinguish, your accusations from REAL accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The laws are passed by the local population. The whites in the area might not be formally organized into a white group, but as a group, they have passed laws against gambling. I'm not speaking for anyone, just pointing out their actions.
> 
> Which is "Wacism", not actual racism. So, please use the correct terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "WACIST "lens. Dude, Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? How hard is this? ALL I'M ASKING is that when you make points like retarded child, to write it out, so it looks like a retarded child talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general,  are smarter than you.  They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that nothing what I said is actually "racist".  BUT, you are using actually racist standards in attacking any whites that dare even speak of white interests, while defending and celebrating minorities doing the same.
> 
> And that is why, blacks are drawn to the dems. Because you are willing to serve and advance their interests, even, if not especially at the expense of whites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.
> 
> If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing I 've said here is actually racist of course, you are just a piece of shit asshole motherfucker.
> 
> 2. And any blacks that don't want that type of anti-white racism in policy is welcome in the GOP and/or to be Presidential candidate. It is only a matter of time and you can go fuck yourself, you faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always, there is no such "white interest." You only think there is because you're a fucking racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your accusations of Evul Wacism,
> 
> 
> and you do so by calling me an Evul Wacist?
> 
> 
> Literally, you just demonstrated that you think that calling someone a name, is a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> DO you understand now, why I want you to write out your words, like you are a retarded child?
> 
> 
> Please start doing that.  It will help people understand who and what you are.
Click to expand...

I already pointed out you have no argument. Making one up out of whole cloth is not an argument. Being against Indian casinos is not a white interest.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You support the idea of whites ganging up against Native Americans and somehow imagine you're not being racist?
Click to expand...



In my worldview, and I was completely clear about this before you cut my post down to nothing,


I believe that all people, and all groups of people, have the same right to organize and pursue and advocate for their interests. 

Equally.  That is treating all people, regardless of race, the same. Ie it is not racism.  It is Evul Wacism, if you want to be a retarded child.


YOU, on the other hand, believe that whites, as a race, do NOT have that right, and should not have that right, while all other races, do.

To be fair, you have a reason for your  race based double standard, ie because whites are the majority.


But, it is still different rules for people, based on race. Which is actual racism.


Let us move on to the next, obvious step. When whites DO, speak out to advocate for their interests, you oppose them doing that, and oppose those interests do you not?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The existence of Indian gaming casinos is certainly not adverse to white interests.
> 
> I live in an area where there are quite a few. In fact, 6 within less than 50 miles, and they are all patronized by a predominantly white clientele, and also employ a predominantly white workforce.
> 
> 
> Is there one issue that you can name that SPECIFICALLY relates to the interests of the white population?
> 
> That doesn't appear to be a "stupid question", it appears to be  a legitimate question.  If you answered it with just a couple of examples, your belief system might be better understood.
> 
> JMO.
Click to expand...




I offered indian casinos as a limited and easy to discuss example.


Getting bogged down in details, as opposed to the principles involved is not helpful.


Moving to other examples would just lead to more of the same. 


Regardless, the example worked. Grumble has admitted to having different standards for different races when it comes to advancing group interests.


His pretense of not understand, was just him trying to not admit that. 


Evasion. Like I said.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
Click to expand...



Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?


While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area.
> 
> This was in regard to your position that minorities could not have interests because they have less power than whites.
> 
> 
> 
> YOu made a point. I addressed it, seriously and honestly.
> 
> 
> Please do not pretend to not understand how my answer related to your point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"I'm saying that sometimes some indians have an interest in casinos, and that conflicts with the interests of whites in the area."*
> 
> Until recently, I've been to the Hard Rock Casino and Guitar hotel in Hollywood -- it's mostly white people there. Seems it's just as much an interest to them as the blacks, hispanics, and others who partake.
> 
> Sure, there are many whites who it's not an interest of; but there are also many blacks who it's not an interest of and there are many hispanics and others who it's not an interest of.
> 
> Point being, it's not against whites. You only _think_ it is because you're a fucking raging racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That some individual whites go there, does not change the fact that the other whites (whites as a group) in the area have the interest and instituted policy of NOT having a casino in the area, or they would have legalized gambling.
> 
> 
> And, there is a difference conflict of interests, and "against whites". You do realize that, right?
> 
> 
> If you have groups of people living in the same area, you will have conflicts of interests.
> 
> 
> THat is not racism, you fucking moron. Discussing it is no racism, you fucking moron. Advocating for one or the other, is not racism, you fucking moron.
> 
> 
> AND, could you please use the term Evul Wacism? I think it is reasonable for you to be the one to distinguish between real accusations of actual racism, and what you libs do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, again.... some whites want them, some don't.  Some blacks want them, some don't.  Some Hispanics want them, some don't. Some Asians want them, some don't.
> 
> It's not a white interest to not have them. Having them is not against whites. They're not a conflict of interest for whites. You only think they are because you're a fucking racist who sees everything through racist lens.
> 
> You look at the world and all you see is black & white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When you have groups, they have group interests, and they will conflict, especially if they live in the same area.
> 
> 
> Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos. That is why there is not legalized gambling. THat is their perceived interest, advocated by them, into law and policy.
> 
> The local indians have the interest of having the casino, and having that money flow into their community. That is their perceived interest,  pushed by them, into law, and policy and an actual working business and cash flowing into their community.
> 
> 
> So, you fucking race baiting asshole, what part of any of that, is Evul Wacism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Whites in the area, as a group, don't want casinos."*_
> 
> Fuck you, ya fucking racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Fuan, I've pointed this out to you before. Please use, "Wacist" when you talk like that, to distinguish, your accusations from REAL accusations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't speak for all whites. Not all whites in the area are against the Casinos.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The laws are passed by the local population. The whites in the area might not be formally organized into a white group, but as a group, they have passed laws against gambling. I'm not speaking for anyone, just pointing out their actions.
> 
> Which is "Wacism", not actual racism. So, please use the correct terminology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And again, you only claim this is a white interest because whites as a group are against them because you're a fucking racist who sees the world through a racist lens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "WACIST "lens. Dude, Seriously, wtf is wrong with you? How hard is this? ALL I'M ASKING is that when you make points like retarded child, to write it out, so it looks like a retarded child talking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here's something else that's above your G-d given comprehension level -- your racist attitude is far more prevalent among conservatives than it is with Liberals. It's why the racist groups like the KKK, neonazis, white supremacists and other assorted alt-rightards lean right. And blacks, in general,  are smarter than you.  They recognize this character flaw where you cannot. That's a big reason why some 90% of blacks vote Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that nothing what I said is actually "racist".  BUT, you are using actually racist standards in attacking any whites that dare even speak of white interests, while defending and celebrating minorities doing the same.
> 
> And that is why, blacks are drawn to the dems. Because you are willing to serve and advance their interests, even, if not especially at the expense of whites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why this thread is spot on -- you'll never live long enough to see a black get nominated for president by the GOP.
> 
> If you want more blacks to start voting Republican, you (collectively) need to stop being racist. Personally, I don't think ya can.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Nothing I 've said here is actually racist of course, you are just a piece of shit asshole motherfucker.
> 
> 2. And any blacks that don't want that type of anti-white racism in policy is welcome in the GOP and/or to be Presidential candidate. It is only a matter of time and you can go fuck yourself, you faggot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As always, there is no such "white interest." You only think there is because you're a fucking racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I challenge you to back up your accusations of Evul Wacism,
> 
> 
> and you do so by calling me an Evul Wacist?
> 
> 
> Literally, you just demonstrated that you think that calling someone a name, is a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> DO you understand now, why I want you to write out your words, like you are a retarded child?
> 
> 
> Please start doing that.  It will help people understand who and what you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already pointed out you have no argument. Making one up out of whole cloth is not an argument. Being against Indian casinos is not a white interest.
Click to expand...



A little late in the game to start whining about the example being vague and ill defined.

It was good enough to reveal that you libs are just hostile to the idea of groups and group interest when it is whites.


YOu have different standards for different races, based on race and you are hostile to whites.


We all knew this, you libs just lie and try to hide it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> But, it is still different rules for people, based on race. Which is actual racism.
> 
> 
> Let us move on to the next, obvious step.


Sorry, no. The definition of racism is not simply having different rules for different people. 
Consider sexism for example..


Correll said:


> Grumble has admitted to having different standards for different races when it comes to advancing group interests.
> 
> 
> His pretense of not understand, was just him trying to not admit that.
> 
> 
> Evasion. Like I said.


Yeah, bullshit. The only "different standard" I've not only acknowledged but advocated has been where the majority vs a minority. Not simply race vs. race which is what you have been arguing for. Because you're the lone flaming racist still standing.. and flaming..


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Moving to other examples would just lead to more of the same.





Correll said:


> Evasion. Like I said.


Got irony?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> It was good enough to reveal that you libs are just hostile to the idea of groups and group interest when it is whites.


Hostile to some flaming racist who's yet to provide a single coherent example illustrating wtf he keeps babbling about? Color me guilty.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But, it is still different rules for people, based on race. Which is actual racism.
> 
> 
> Let us move on to the next, obvious step.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, no. The definition of racism is not simply having different rules for different people.
> Consider sexism for example..
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble has admitted to having different standards for different races when it comes to advancing group interests.
> 
> 
> His pretense of not understand, was just him trying to not admit that.
> 
> 
> Evasion. Like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, bullshit. The only "different standard" I've not only acknowledged but advocated has been where the majority vs a minority. Not simply race vs. race which is what you have been arguing for. Because you're the lone flaming racist still standing.. and flaming..
Click to expand...



*"rac·ism
/ˈrāˌsizəm/*
noun

1.prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized:"

1. Your behavior is demonstrating both discrimination and antagonism against whites. That fits the definition of racism. You are being racist, really racist, not the pretend game you libs like to play.


2. Being in the majority does not mean that you do not have the right to have your interests in any specific conflict of interests, considered with fairness, and not just "deferred" to the black guy or whatever minority is in question. That is just you being racist again.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moving to other examples would just lead to more of the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evasion. Like I said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Got irony?
Click to expand...



Nope. You were trying to avoid admitting your racist position. 


That was something you were doing, and the complete opposite of what I was doing. 


No irony at all.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> It was good enough to reveal that you libs are just hostile to the idea of groups and group interest when it is whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Hostile to some flaming racist who's yet to provide a single coherent example illustrating wtf he keeps babbling about? Color me guilty.
Click to expand...



We are past the example portion of the debate. THe example was good enough for both of us to reveal our positions on the issue of Group interests.


I support them and the right of all groups to organize and advocate for them.


You support them and the right of all groups to organize and advocate for them, except for whites.


And to you, that means I am "wacist".


LOL!!!!!!!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Yes, your nothing example and complete lack of evidence supporting your idea that white people, other than overt racists, are gathering together in groups, saying _"Hey, we white people are really being targeted and getting screwed here! We need to get even more of us together and fight back!"_


----------



## Death Angel

IM2 said:


> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.


Why is color the only thing to you?  Black, black, black black black black black


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Yes, your nothing example and complete lack of evidence supporting your idea that white people, other than overt racists, are gathering together in groups, saying _"Hey, we white people are really being targeted and getting screwed here! We need to get even more of us together and fight back!"_




1. Your strawman of what I meant by "white interests" is noted and dismissed as a meaningless strawman.


2. Would you like to give the next example for discussion purposes? ONe that shows what you mean by it being ok for minorities to advocate for their interests and/or how it is not ok for whites to do the same.


3. ANd I promise not to play any of the silly evasive games you played. 


4. THough, if you cry "wacism" I will request that you spell out the words, as though speaking like a retarded child. That is completely fair.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Death Angel said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is color the only thing to you?  Black, black, black black black black black
Click to expand...

You've never seen a Stormfronter going White, white, white white white white white?
Correll's been busy doing a bang up job of mimicking a lame one right here..


----------



## Death Angel

Grumblenuts said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is color the only thing to you?  Black, black, black black black black black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never seen a Stormfronter going White, white, white white white white white?
> Correll's been busy doing a bang up job of mimicking a lame one right here..
Click to expand...

I'm not on stormfront. I'm here.


----------



## Grumblenuts

And?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the whites who talk about democratic plantations can't seem to tell us when they will nominate a black presidential candidate.
> 
> 
> 
> Why is color the only thing to you?  Black, black, black black black black black
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've never seen a Stormfronter going White, white, white white white white white?
> Correll's been busy doing a bang up job of mimicking a lame one right here..
Click to expand...



You're the one with different standards based on race.

If not for that, we would be in agreement on this issue and would have moved on.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> And?



You should do the next example, one to demonstrate your position, that shows a minority group, advocating for some group interest and them some whites to show why it is bad when whites do it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

You should try to make some sense.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> You should try to make some sense.




Perfect sense. I came up with a limited example for discussion purposes and we discussed it, and it was very informative about the issues at hand and the gap in positions between us.


My example showed MY take on the issue, though your response was very revealing. 


I think it could be helpful if you do the next one. Show us what you envision when you imagine a black or other minority group advocating for a group interest and what you envision when whites do the same and why it is different.


----------



## Grumblenuts

You have so far only publicly "envisioned" some whites doing the same. A group self-identifying as "white" representing "white interests" opposing some obvious minority. I envision only overt racists doing the same, as you should know full well by now.


----------



## Jitss617

I think She is amazing!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> .... A group self-identifying as "white" representing "white interests" opposing some obvious minority. I envision only overt racists doing the same, as you should damn well know full well by now.



So, show it, in an example so we can see how it would play out.


----------



## Grumblenuts

"She" being who?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> "She" being who?




There is another thread about Candence Owens stating her intent to run for an unspecified office. I am pretty sure that is whom he is referring to.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> So, show it, in an example so we can see how it would play out.


Fine. Black woman caught driving while black. White patrolman rapes, strangles, and dumps her body in some woods. Second white patrolman stops by and spits, "Stupid ****** was just asking for it." They both then drive away.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, show it, in an example so we can see how it would play out.
> 
> 
> 
> Fine. Black woman caught driving while black. White patrolman rapes, strangles, and dumps her body in some woods. Second white patrolman stops by and spits, "Stupid ****** was just asking for it." They both then drive away.
Click to expand...



Come on spin it out. The story. Identify the interests of the two communities and how you think it would play out.

It's easy to be a critic. Now it's your turn to do the example. 

Don't be afraid. I'm not an asshole looking to play silly games.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I'm not an asshole looking to play silly games.


Sure fooling me then!


> Come on spin it out. The story. Identify the interests of the two communities and how you think it would play out.


I just did. Don't like it? Kiss my lily white ass.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not an asshole looking to play silly games.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure fooling me then!
> 
> 
> 
> Come on spin it out. The story. Identify the interests of the two communities and how you think it would play out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did. Don't like it? Kiss my lily white ass.
Click to expand...



In my example I identified both sets of conflicting interests and showed how it resolved, ie the INdians getting their interests represented, ie winning.


What are the interests in your example?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not an asshole looking to play silly games.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure fooling me then!
> 
> 
> 
> Come on spin it out. The story. Identify the interests of the two communities and how you think it would play out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just did. Don't like it? Kiss my lily white ass.
Click to expand...



So, I'll guess.

The black interest would be for justice for their murdered member. Simple enough. I guess we see something along the lines of Black Lives Matter, and you support that...


And you imagine the the whites would rally around the murderous cop and resist that? Perhaps, launching a campaign arguing that the woman was a dangerous criminal, or just giving the cop a pass? And you don't support that, and you assume that evul wacist whites would?


----------



## Grumblenuts

No. The woman is the minority, interested in going somewhere and surviving, unmolested. The two whites cops represent the majority, expressing their common interest in seeing one another overtly engage in racist activity; the first by preventing the uppity minority from getting anywhere, the second by cheering on the first one's work.

If the woman could be revived, I'd be interested in her thoughts regarding what happened. Could not care less what the cops had to say for themselves.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> No. The woman is the minority, interested in going somewhere and surviving, unmolested. The two whites cops represent the majority, expressing their common interest in seeing one another overtly engage in racist activity; the first by preventing the uppity minority from getting anywhere, the second by cheering on the first one's work.
> 
> If the woman could be revived, I'd be interested in her thoughts regarding what happened. Could not care less what the cops had to say for themselves.



It is interesting that you can only imagine the "White interest" as A. criminal and B. directly harmful to the minority in question.


You seem to be refusing to consider the actual groups in question. Why is that?


----------



## Correll

In my example, neither group were comic book villains...


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> No. The woman is the minority, interested in going somewhere and surviving, unmolested. The two whites cops represent the majority, expressing their common interest in seeing one another overtly engage in racist activity; the first by preventing the uppity minority from getting anywhere, the second by cheering on the first one's work.
> 
> If the woman could be revived, I'd be interested in her thoughts regarding what happened. Could not care less what the cops had to say for themselves.




You know, this reminds me of a conversation I had with IM2, a year or so ago, if I recall correctly.


He posted an example of a corrupt cop, who was abusing minority women drivers, pulling them over and arresting them or ticketing them and allowing them to get off the crime, if they provided sexual favors.


lM2, was furious about this, because the cop was being tried with an all white jury. 


And he assumed racism.  Sorry, he assumed Evul Wacism.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
Click to expand...

You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
Click to expand...




Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.


That is a white interest, that is denied us. 


Do you support that interest or oppose it?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
Click to expand...

Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot. 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....

Organizing  is not a "white interest."


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
Click to expand...



Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.


Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?


Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.


Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.


What is your position on it?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
Click to expand...



And you are the racist idiot, you fucking asshole.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?
> 
> 
> Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.
> 
> 
> Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.
> 
> 
> What is your position on it?
Click to expand...

"Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "

No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.

Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you are the racist idiot, you fucking asshole.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You're fucking deranged, ya fucking racist.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?
> 
> 
> Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.
> 
> 
> Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.
> 
> 
> What is your position on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "
> 
> No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.
> 
> Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.
Click to expand...



Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.


And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.


And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".


To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.


And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.


So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And you are the racist idiot, you fucking asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> You're fucking deranged, ya fucking racist.
Click to expand...



Said the man that wants white people's freedom of speech met with arrest.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
Click to expand...


Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about. 

That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests". 

Therefore:

* Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?


*Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?

*Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?
After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".

I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it. 

That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.

 I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue. 

But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.


----------



## Grumblenuts

katsteve2012 said:


> there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.


Yes, exposing Correl's nonsensical pleading here as nothing but wistful self-delusion, leading one wonder about the possible cause, putting it mildly. 


> The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.


Bullshit!


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> ....
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.



Agree completely.




> That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".



Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests. 




> Therefore:
> 
> * Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?




His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them.  He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them. 




> *Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?



In a very different way, but yes.  Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.




> *Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?




Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.




> After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".



You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush. 



> I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.
> 
> That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.
> 
> I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.
> 
> But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.




Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since. 

Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech. 


Just saying.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, exposing Correl's nonsensical pleading here as nothing but wistful self-delusion, leading one wonder about the possible cause, putting it mildly.
> 
> 
> 
> The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!
Click to expand...



in my example of a minority interest, I had Indians wanting and getting a casino so they could make some money for their community.


In your example of a white interest, you had a white cop rape and murder a black woman.


You are the racist hater here, not me.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> * Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them.  He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a very different way, but yes.  Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.
> 
> That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.
> 
> I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.
> 
> But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.
> 
> Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.
> 
> 
> Just saying.
Click to expand...


You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.

As far as North Carolina goes,  Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.

As far as "The Proud Boys" versus the unite the right rally, I'm not confused at all. 

They both represent some form of "white interest"....and recognizing that has nothing to do with a "liberal or conservative tactic"

I am Apolitical,  and have no faith in either side.

So, no need for semantics, it is what it is.

As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.

The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> * Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them.  He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a very different way, but yes.  Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.
> 
> That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.
> 
> I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.
> 
> But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.
> 
> Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.
> 
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.
> 
> As far as North Carolina goes,  Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.
> 
> No need for semantics.
> 
> As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.
> 
> The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
> .
Click to expand...




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


That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.


If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic. 


So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> * Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them.  He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a very different way, but yes.  Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.
> 
> That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.
> 
> I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.
> 
> But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.
> 
> Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.
> 
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.
> 
> As far as North Carolina goes,  Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.
> 
> No need for semantics.
> 
> As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.
> 
> The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.
> 
> 
> If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?
Click to expand...


Nothing "shocks me" at all.

There are always various versions of what is perceived as truth, and  people hear what they want to hear based on how partisan on certain issues  they happen to be. 

Trumps INITIAL statement was a little different than his statement 48 hours later, after he obviously received some "public relations coaching".  

And his INITIAL statement is what I took him to really mean. 

That was his FIRST reaction.

So if one is a Trump loyalist, of course they "hear" with a different filter than one who is not.

I tend to not politicize what I think, and LISTEN to exactly what I hear people state, without ANY  political allegiance.









						PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
					

On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr




					www.politifact.com
				




One side will always allege that the other is "lying or being lied to", and the truth typically resides somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> * Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them.  He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a very different way, but yes.  Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.
> 
> That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.
> 
> I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.
> 
> But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.
> 
> Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.
> 
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.
> 
> As far as North Carolina goes,  Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.
> 
> No need for semantics.
> 
> As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.
> 
> The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.
> 
> 
> If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing "shocks me" at all.
> 
> There are always various versions of what is perceived as truth, and  people hear what they want to hear based on how partisan on certain issues  they happen to be.
> 
> Trumps INITIAL statement was a little different than his statement 48 hours later, after he obviously received some "public relations coaching".
> 
> And his INITIAL statement is what I took him to really mean.
> 
> That was his FIRST reaction.
> 
> So if one is a Trump loyalist, of course they "hear" with a different filter than one who is not.
> 
> I tend to not politicize what I think, and LISTEN to exactly what I hear people state, without ANY  political allegiance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
> 
> 
> On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One side will always allege that the other is "lying or being lied to", and the truth typically resides somewhere in the middle.
Click to expand...



From your link

"*Trump*: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. "


"*Trump*: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict.... The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. "


*"Trump*: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." "


*"Trump*: "... And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay?"




It is clear that he condemned the neo-nazis,and was talking about other people, when he said "very fine people".


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> * Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them.  He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a very different way, but yes.  Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.
> 
> That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.
> 
> I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.
> 
> But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.
> 
> Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.
> 
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.
> 
> As far as North Carolina goes,  Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.
> 
> No need for semantics.
> 
> As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.
> 
> The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.
> 
> 
> If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing "shocks me" at all.
> 
> There are always various versions of what is perceived as truth, and  people hear what they want to hear based on how partisan on certain issues  they happen to be.
> 
> Trumps INITIAL statement was a little different than his statement 48 hours later, after he obviously received some "public relations coaching".
> 
> And his INITIAL statement is what I took him to really mean.
> 
> That was his FIRST reaction.
> 
> So if one is a Trump loyalist, of course they "hear" with a different filter than one who is not.
> 
> I tend to not politicize what I think, and LISTEN to exactly what I hear people state, without ANY  political allegiance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
> 
> 
> On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One side will always allege that the other is "lying or being lied to", and the truth typically resides somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From your link
> 
> "*Trump*: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. "
> 
> 
> "*Trump*: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict.... The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. "
> 
> 
> *"Trump*: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." "
> 
> 
> *"Trump*: "... And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that he condemned the neo-nazis,and was talking about other people, when he said "very fine people".
Click to expand...


Sure he did. AFTER his INITIAL statement.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> Speaking for myself, I'm all for it, because I believe that sunlight is the best option in terms of knowing what a cause is about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agree completely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, you've stated before that Trump represents "white interests".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I said that Trump's platform was crafted to appeal to working class and middle class white voters' interests.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Therefore:
> 
> * Aren't his rallies an expression of "white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> His rallies then would be expressions of support from people who support white interests, or are not opposed to them.  He did get significant hispanic support and it is not right to ignore them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Weren't The "very fine people" at the "unite the right" rally in North Carolina "representing white interests"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In a very different way, but yes.  Also, Trump never called the people behind the rally, ie the white supremacists, "very fine people". That you felt a need to use a lie to make your point, shows how weak you know your point it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Don't "The Proud Boys" represent white interests?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Proud Boys are Western Supremacists. Very congruent with white interests, but not exactly the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After all, they are free to chant in the streets "You will not replace us".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're confusing Proud Boys with the Unite the Right rally. Standard libs tactic of smearing everyone with a broad brush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm for all of them having a voice and being allowed to express it.
> 
> That type of open expression allows everyone to know where they stand in society.
> 
> I am just lurking here, and not really in this dialogue.
> 
> But, there does not appear to be a single restriction on the pursuit of "white interests" that I can readily identify anywhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well, in the Unite the Right rally, (your example) the local politicians ordered the cops to stand down so the more numerous Antifan goons could violently attack them. A tactic we have seen used several times before and since.
> 
> Violent attacks by mobs, is a restriction on free speech.
> 
> 
> Just saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a little quick on the trigger in terms of saying people are lying.
> 
> As far as North Carolina goes,  Trump stated that there were "fine people on BOTH sides"......which would include those who protested and those who counter protested.
> 
> No need for semantics.
> 
> As I stated before, I want everyone to have a voice, so their sentiments are transparent.
> 
> The most dangerous people out there, are those with a hidden agenda.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> That has been widely discussed. It is hard to credit that you have missed it.
> 
> 
> If you have, you should be very interested in getting it right, and shocked at how badly you were lied to, on such a sensitive and important topic.
> 
> 
> So, which is it? Are you shocked? Or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nothing "shocks me" at all.
> 
> There are always various versions of what is perceived as truth, and  people hear what they want to hear based on how partisan on certain issues  they happen to be.
> 
> Trumps INITIAL statement was a little different than his statement 48 hours later, after he obviously received some "public relations coaching".
> 
> And his INITIAL statement is what I took him to really mean.
> 
> That was his FIRST reaction.
> 
> So if one is a Trump loyalist, of course they "hear" with a different filter than one who is not.
> 
> I tend to not politicize what I think, and LISTEN to exactly what I hear people state, without ANY  political allegiance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
> 
> 
> On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One side will always allege that the other is "lying or being lied to", and the truth typically resides somewhere in the middle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From your link
> 
> "*Trump*: "As I said on -- remember, Saturday -- we condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence. It has no place in America. "
> 
> 
> "*Trump*: "Well, I think the driver of the car is a disgrace to himself, his family, and this country. And that is -- you can call it terrorism. You can call it murder. You can call it whatever you want. I would just call it as the fastest one to come up with a good verdict.... The driver of the car is a murderer. And what he did was a horrible, horrible, inexcusable thing. "
> 
> 
> *"Trump*: "Those people -- all of those people – excuse me, I’ve condemned neo-Nazis. I’ve condemned many different groups. But not all of those people were neo-Nazis, believe me. Not all of those people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were also there because they wanted to protest the taking down of a statue of Robert E. Lee." "
> 
> 
> *"Trump*: "... And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is clear that he condemned the neo-nazis,and was talking about other people, when he said "very fine people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure he did. AFTER his INITIAL statement.
Click to expand...



His very fine people statement came from his later statement. 


ANd here is his first statement on the event.










						Read: President Trump's remarks condemning violence "on many sides" in Charlottesville
					

Here’s a full transcript of Trump’s remarks.




					www.vox.com
				





 "But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.  "


"I just got off the phone with the governor of Virginia, Terry McAuliffe, and we agree that the hate and the division must stop, and must stop right now. We have to come together as Americans with love for our nation and true affection-- really, I say this so strongly, true affection for each other. "


" so when I watch Charlottesville, to me it's very, very sad. "

"
Above all else, we must remember this truth: No matter our color, creed, religion or political party, we are all Americans first. We love our country. We love our god.

We love our flag. We're proud of our country. We're proud of who we are, so we want to get the situation straightened out in Charlottesville, and we want to study it. And we want to see what we're doing wrong as a country where things like this can happen. "



"We must love each other, respect each other and cherish our history and our future together. So important. We have to respect each other. Ideally, we have to love each other. "





Or do you want to post the entire thing and go though it line by line and tell me what I am missing?


Cause, the bit you implied, that he said "neo-nazis" were very fine people? THAT NEVER HAPPENED. 


YOU WERE LIED TO. 


Are you going to take that?


----------



## Correll

ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.


And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,


has been refuted.


So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.


WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing. 


THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.


In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks. 


Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.
> 
> 
> And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,
> 
> 
> has been refuted.
> 
> 
> So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.
> 
> 
> WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.
> 
> 
> THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.
> 
> 
> In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.
> 
> 
> Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.



Nope. I am am apolitical in this dialogue. I presented some of what I believe to be "white interests", and on some, you agreed.

Let's at least be truthful here and put partisan politics aside.









						Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false
					

The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.




					www.vox.com


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.
> 
> 
> And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,
> 
> 
> has been refuted.
> 
> 
> So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.
> 
> 
> WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.
> 
> 
> THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.
> 
> 
> In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.
> 
> 
> Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I am am apolitical in this dialogue. I presented some of what I believe to be "white interests", and on some, you agreed.
> 
> Let's at least be truthful here and put partisan politics aside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false
> 
> 
> The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
Click to expand...




1. I was referring to Grumble and Faun.

2. I looked at you last link and pointed out that it did not say what you thought it did. 

3. YOur new link? 

It makes the common next step when libs are called on the fact that Trump did not say what they say he did.

ie that Trump's statement about the protesters were indeed about neo-nazis, because the people behind the rally were neo-nazis. 


THe problem with that line of argument is that it slyly but radically changes the topic from,

did the President say nazis were very fine people, 


to, 

is the President right about who was at the rally?



Once you reach this point, you are no longer arguing that Trump has good feelings for neo-nazis, but that Trump is bad at knowing who is in the park. 


That is where you should stop using the line, "very fine people".


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?
> 
> 
> Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.
> 
> 
> Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.
> 
> 
> What is your position on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "
> 
> No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.
> 
> Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.
> 
> 
> And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.
> 
> 
> And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".
> 
> 
> To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.
> 
> 
> And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.
> 
> 
> So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.
Click to expand...

_*"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."*_

That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.
> 
> 
> And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,
> 
> 
> has been refuted.
> 
> 
> So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.
> 
> 
> WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.
> 
> 
> THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.
> 
> 
> In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.
> 
> 
> Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I am am apolitical in this dialogue. I presented some of what I believe to be "white interests", and on some, you agreed.
> 
> Let's at least be truthful here and put partisan politics aside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false
> 
> 
> The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I was referring to Grumble and Faun.
> 
> 2. I looked at you last link and pointed out that it did not say what you thought it did.
> 
> 3. YOur new link?
> 
> It makes the common next step when libs are called on the fact that Trump did not say what they say he did.
> 
> ie that Trump's statement about the protesters were indeed about neo-nazis, because the people behind the rally were neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> THe problem with that line of argument is that it slyly but radically changes the topic from,
> 
> did the President say nazis were very fine people,
> 
> 
> to,
> 
> is the President right about who was at the rally?
> 
> 
> 
> Once you reach this point, you are no longer arguing that Trump has good feelings for neo-nazis, but that Trump is bad at knowing who is in the park.
> 
> 
> That is where you should stop using the line, "very fine people".
Click to expand...


Trump said what he did initially. Nothing changes that fact, which was:

"There were fine people on both sides".

Carry on. 

I'm out.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


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


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

There was no one there on the right but racists.


----------



## Grumblenuts

From the beginning of Trump's original statement:


> But we're closely following the terrible events unfolding in Charlottesville, Virginia. We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry and violence on many sides, on many sides. It's been going on for a long time in our country. Not Donald Trump, not Barack Obama, this has been going on for a long, long time. It has no place in America.


Whether "two sides" or "many, many" the clear message is to shift the blame *from* those primarily responsible. Those who planned the predictable resultant "hatred, bigotry and violence" to begin with. That was clearly the primary "interest" of those claiming to have "white interests." The people of Charlottesville wanted no part of it. They sure got stuck with cleaning up the mess though. 


> What is vital now is a swift restoration of law and order


Bit late, but hey, every tragedy creates a new opportunity to promote fascism!


----------



## Grumblenuts

For whenever "white interests" get to feeling too threatened:


> I can tell you I have the support of the police, the support of the military, the support of the Bikers for Trump – I have the tough people, but they don’t play it tough — until they go to a certain point, and then it would be very bad, very bad.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?
> 
> 
> Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.
> 
> 
> Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.
> 
> 
> What is your position on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "
> 
> No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.
> 
> Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.
> 
> 
> And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.
> 
> 
> And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".
> 
> 
> To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.
> 
> 
> And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.
> 
> 
> So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."*_
> 
> That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.
Click to expand...



I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.


You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.


YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> ANy how, this thread, which pretended to be about possibly First Black Republican Presidents, has been shown to be nothing but the standard lib race baiting.
> 
> 
> And the angle of attack they choose, tying to show that the lack of black republicans Presidential nominees, was because of Evul Wacism on the part of GOP voters,
> 
> 
> has been refuted.
> 
> 
> So, naturally, the libs in question have grown increasingly bitter and personal, and moved on to standard lib response number one, more race baiting.
> 
> 
> WHICH, shockingly has been very revealing.
> 
> 
> THe libs in question have ironically revealed themselves to be rabid anti-white racists.
> 
> 
> In a discussion about white interests, when asked to give an example, BOTH of them could only envision white interest as violent crimes against blacks.
> 
> 
> Their naked hatred for their own people, was shocking in it's intensity and madness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. I am am apolitical in this dialogue. I presented some of what I believe to be "white interests", and on some, you agreed.
> 
> Let's at least be truthful here and put partisan politics aside.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump’s new defense of his Charlottesville comments is incredibly false
> 
> 
> The 2017 "Unite the Right" rally was organized by and intended for white supremacists and white nationalists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.vox.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I was referring to Grumble and Faun.
> 
> 2. I looked at you last link and pointed out that it did not say what you thought it did.
> 
> 3. YOur new link?
> 
> It makes the common next step when libs are called on the fact that Trump did not say what they say he did.
> 
> ie that Trump's statement about the protesters were indeed about neo-nazis, because the people behind the rally were neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> THe problem with that line of argument is that it slyly but radically changes the topic from,
> 
> did the President say nazis were very fine people,
> 
> 
> to,
> 
> is the President right about who was at the rally?
> 
> 
> 
> Once you reach this point, you are no longer arguing that Trump has good feelings for neo-nazis, but that Trump is bad at knowing who is in the park.
> 
> 
> That is where you should stop using the line, "very fine people".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump said what he did initially. Nothing changes that fact, which was:
> 
> "There were fine people on both sides".
> 
> Carry on.
> 
> I'm out.
Click to expand...





And the claim that he was referring to neo-nazis, has been shown to be false.


The next time you try to imply he is sympathetic to neo-nazis with that line, you will be knowingly lying.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
Click to expand...




Trump's words prove that he thought there were. He was certainly explicitly clear that he was not referring to the neo-nazis, but to the people that were not neo-nazis that he (and I ) believe were also there.


I understand if you think we are wrong about that. But lying and claiming we are saying something that we are not saying, is you being a lying asshole.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.


You're a shit flinger. I'm anti-"white interests".. No such thing beyond supremacist haters of minorities. Get it straight.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?
> 
> 
> Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.
> 
> 
> Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.
> 
> 
> What is your position on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "
> 
> No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.
> 
> Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.
> 
> 
> And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.
> 
> 
> And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".
> 
> 
> To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.
> 
> 
> And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.
> 
> 
> So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."*_
> 
> That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.
> 
> 
> You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.
> 
> 
> YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck, you're hallucinating again. 

I am white, not anti-white. And I didn't say what your delusions lead you to believe I said.

You're truly fucking crazy. 

Again, what I said was you need to post an actual example of a "white interest" for me to be able to comment on it.


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.
> 
> 
> 
> You're a shit flinger. I'm anti-"white interests".. No such thing beyond supremacist haters of minorities. Get it straight.
Click to expand...



Your denial of the existence of white interests is silly and not fooling anyone, not even yourself.


Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them. 


My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community. 


Your example of a white interest was a white cop raping and murdering a black woman. 



And you accuse me of "flinging shit"?


LOL!!!!



You are full of hate, racist hate directed at white people.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's words prove that he thought there were. He was certainly explicitly clear that he was not referring to the neo-nazis, but to the people that were not neo-nazis that he (and I ) believe were also there.
> 
> 
> I understand if you think we are wrong about that. But lying and claiming we are saying something that we are not saying, is you being a lying asshole.
Click to expand...

Dumfuck racist, Impeached Trump's words emboldened the racists. That's how fucked up Impeached Trump's initial response was. They took to twitter to acknowledge Impeached Trump's support for them.

That's why Impeached Trump had to come out and fix what he said. Be he fucked that up too and had to come out a third time to fix his second comments.

And again, it was a racist rally and Impeached Trump said some of them were very fine people.

And of course, a piece of shit fucking racist like you defends his support of racists at every opportunity.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?
> 
> 
> Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.
> 
> 
> Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.
> 
> 
> What is your position on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "
> 
> No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.
> 
> Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.
> 
> 
> And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.
> 
> 
> And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".
> 
> 
> To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.
> 
> 
> And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.
> 
> 
> So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."*_
> 
> That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.
> 
> 
> You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.
> 
> 
> YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> I am white, not anti-white. And I didn't say what your delusions lead you to believe I said.
> 
> You're truly fucking crazy.
> 
> Again, what I said was you need to post an actual example of a "white interest" for me to be able to comment on it.
Click to expand...




I did post an example of an actual white interest, ie the interest in having and exercising the rights of assembly and speech.


You imagined a violent crime and arresting them and imprisoning them. When the example was just speech.


You are obviously a rabidly anti-white racist.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.
> 
> 
> My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.


Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.


----------



## Faun

katsteve2012 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
Click to expand...

Just look at the list of speakers they had organized to attend to rally the crowd.... every one of them is an unabashed flaming racist. The main purpose of their rally was to gain power among the alt-right by combining forces of neonazis, KKK and other assorted white supremacists. 

^^^ That's who attended that rally on the right.

^^^ That's who Impeached Trump referred to when he said there were very fine people on both sides.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Bingo.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's words prove that he thought there were. He was certainly explicitly clear that he was not referring to the neo-nazis, but to the people that were not neo-nazis that he (and I ) believe were also there.
> 
> 
> I understand if you think we are wrong about that. But lying and claiming we are saying something that we are not saying, is you being a lying asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumfuck racist, Impeached Trump's words emboldened the racists. That's how fucked up Impeached Trump's initial response was. They took to twitter to acknowledge Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> That's why Impeached Trump had to come out and fix what he said. Be he fucked that up too and had to come out a third time to fix his second comments.
> 
> And again, it was a racist rally and Impeached Trump said some of them were very fine people.
> 
> And of course, a piece of shit fucking racist like you defends his support of racists at every opportunity.
Click to expand...




If that was true, you would not have to lie about what he said. 


And yet, you libs ALL lie about it. NONE of you can admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about neo-nazis when he said that.

THus, your claim that this is Trump's fault is obviously bullshit.


THe act of you lying, is you admitting that your claims are bullshit. AND THAT YOU KNOW IT.


So, knock that shit off. you are not fooling me. 


You raving anti-white racist.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just look at the list of speakers they had organized to attend to rally the crowd.... every one of them is an unabashed flaming racist. The main purpose of their rally was to gain power among the alt-right by combining forces of neonazis, KKK and other assorted white supremacists.
> 
> ^^^ That's who attended that rally on the right.
> 
> ^^^ That's who Impeached Trump referred to when he said there were very fine people on both sides.
Click to expand...



NOne of which have any real name recognition. So, that is not a red flag to hardly anyone.


As you well know.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Bingo.




Bingo? For lying about what was said?


Are you insane, or just lying?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?
> 
> 
> Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.
> 
> 
> Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.
> 
> 
> What is your position on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "
> 
> No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.
> 
> Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.
> 
> 
> And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.
> 
> 
> And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".
> 
> 
> To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.
> 
> 
> And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.
> 
> 
> So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."*_
> 
> That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.
> 
> 
> You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.
> 
> 
> YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> I am white, not anti-white. And I didn't say what your delusions lead you to believe I said.
> 
> You're truly fucking crazy.
> 
> Again, what I said was you need to post an actual example of a "white interest" for me to be able to comment on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did post an example of an actual white interest, ie the interest in having and exercising the rights of assembly and speech.
> 
> 
> You imagined a violent crime and arresting them and imprisoning them. When the example was just speech.
> 
> 
> You are obviously a rabidly anti-white racist.
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck racist, "exercising the rights of assembly and speech," is not a "white interest."

It's an "American interest." Skin color has nothing g at all to do with it.

Referring to that as a "white interest" is revealing it as a "racist interest," which is how you expose yourself (again) as a piece of shit fucking racist.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.
> 
> 
> My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.
Click to expand...



There was a legitimate non-racist "white interest" in the example of the Indian casino, ie the desire of the local white population as a group, to not have casinos in their area.


That you dismissed it, because it does not fit your fantasy of all white interesting being "white supremacy" is just you being retarded, it is still an fine example.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just look at the list of speakers they had organized to attend to rally the crowd.... every one of them is an unabashed flaming racist. The main purpose of their rally was to gain power among the alt-right by combining forces of neonazis, KKK and other assorted white supremacists.
> 
> ^^^ That's who attended that rally on the right.
> 
> ^^^ That's who Impeached Trump referred to when he said there were very fine people on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOne of which have any real name recognition. So, that is not a red flag to hardly anyone.
> 
> 
> As you well know.
Click to expand...

Lying doesn't help you.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.
> 
> 
> My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a legitimate non-racist "white interest" in the example of the Indian casino, ie the desire of the local white population as a group, to not have casinos in their area.
Click to expand...

Lying doesn't help you.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name ONE White interest that you would side with the whites vs any conflicting minority interests?
> 
> 
> 
> Logically, a minority's interests could only conflict with those of whites given that minority was:
> A. Not itself vastly identifiable as "white."
> B. Economically (and therefore politically) more powerful than whites in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A conflict in interests does not require that.
> 
> 
> American indian tribes have an interest in having their treaties respected so they can benefit from having casinos.
> 
> They have less economic and political power then whites, yet they have an interest and generally have it advanced and represented in policy.
> 
> 
> Your attempt to pretend that such conflicts do not happen, is not realistic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you're saying the interests of white people still conflict with those of Native Americans? White people can't have casinos? White people don't want to respect the treaties they once agreed to any more?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White people have way more casinos than Native Americsns.
> 
> But even in the casinos that Native Americans own, they employ many people of ALL races. I visit several of them regularly where I live in California. Sometimes to dine, of just play some roulette or blackjack.
> 
> I also live 3 hours from Vegas and go to championship fights there all the time.
> 
> Literally every hotel and casino on the Vegas strip is owned by a white real estate mogul.who had family members or connections in organized crime years ago.
> 
> The  few casinos that Native Americans own throughout America are small time  by comparison to what is in Vegas.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. I was offering that as as example of a conflict of interests to a lib who is pretending to be confused at how groups, or at least whites, can have interests.
> 
> 
> To be clear, I fully support the rights of Indians to have interests and to organize and work to have those interests represented and advanced in policy.
> 
> Indeed, I picked this as an example, because I could not care less about it, and it would be easy for me to discuss logically and rationally without having any of my own concerns clouding my thinking.
> 
> 
> To be more clear, I also support the rights of hte whites in the area to have their interests and to organize and work together to see them represented in policy.
> 
> 
> That is what Grumble really can't deal with.  The idea that whites might have interests and, god forbid, be wiling to push from them ESPECIALLY AGAINST A MINORITY INTEREST?
> 
> lol!!!
> 
> 
> And, he can't see how racist his position is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He doesn't appear to not understand that "whites can have interests".
> 
> Maybe he is looking for an example of an interest that primarily affects the white population.
> 
> Maybe one like the opioid epidemic. That's one that I would bet most people would get behind.
> I certainly would.
> 
> But generally casinos bring jobs, entertainment venue destinations and city revenue that is good for lifting property values.
> 
> 
> At least that's the case in my state.  When I go to casinos here, the vast majority of the patrons are typically white people who appear to be having a good time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You don't need to agree with an interest to see that it exists.
> 
> 2. An issue does not have to effect primarily one group, for that group to have an interest in it.
> 
> 3. Smaller more contained examples are better than bigger ones, with more factors to confuse the issue. There is no reason for him to not be able to see and understand the issues and the ideas present. He is being willfully obtuse.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Where did I state that agreement on a issue has to be present for it to exist?
> 
> 2. It is you who brought up "white interests" For an interest to be identified as a "white interest" wouldn't it need to important to enough white people for it to gain support?
> 
> 
> 3. As far as Grumble goes, I cannot speak for him. However I have seen him ask you to identify what you consider to be a "white issue" several times, but up until now, you have only presented Indian gaming casinos. Surely there must be more?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. When you offered an alternative that "most people could get behind" that was my take away.
> 
> 2. Sure. Tons. But I think that Grumble is being dishonest in asking for that listing. He knows damn well that whites have interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. You were correct. Most people would likely support fighting the opioid epidemic. It is a genuine crisis.
> 
> 2. Again, if there are "tons of white interests", maybe some  here would discuss them, if some examples were offered.
> 
> As opposed to assuming what you think "Grumble knows", why not just point  out a couple of them that specifically affect white people in your opinion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. As I said, you don't need to agree with an interests to admit it exists and to discuss it.
> 
> 2. I gave an example.
> 
> 3. Because asking stupid questions like that, is often used as a form of evasion.
> 
> 4.  Do you understand the example I gave?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you gave a bullshit nonexistent example. There's no such white interest against Indian casinos. Many whites support them. Many whites want them. Many whites work at them and many whites visit them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Do you want to admit that you are like Grumble? That you opposed the concept of white interests because whites are the majority?
> 
> 
> While supporting the idea of minority interests of course.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'd have to provide an actual example of "white interests" for me to answer. Not made up ones like your ridiculous Indian casino example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. The interest in being able to organize to advocate for your interests, without being attacked and slandered for it, like minorities are allowed to do.
> 
> 
> That is a white interest, that is denied us.
> 
> 
> Do you support that interest or oppose it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Looks like I have to repeat myself because you're a racist idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You"ll need to cite an example of what you mean by "white interest" for me to answer that....
> 
> Organizing  is not a "white interest."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered,  is certainly an interest.
> 
> 
> Indeed, it is the beginning of getting all interests. If you cannot even speak out to request an interest, how can you ever get it?
> 
> 
> Being denied that ability, is the end of all interests. Having it, is the beginning of getting all inerests.
> 
> 
> Grumble was clear. He opposes this interest for whites.
> 
> 
> What is your position on it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Being able to organize and advocate without being viciously attacked and slandered, is certainly an interest. "
> 
> No, it's not. If a group of whites choose to organize and advocate the white race by burning a cross on some black family's yard -- they should be viciously attacked and slandered and arrested.
> 
> Cite a legit "white interest" if you want me to answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests.
> 
> 
> And if any interest are presented, you are hostile to whites' interests and supportive of minority interests based on race.
> 
> 
> And you think that makes other people "Evul Wacists".
> 
> 
> To explain my reasoning there, you requested an example of a white interest, and I gave what should have been the most basic and harmless one imaginable, ie the right to be able to advocate for interests.
> 
> 
> And you conflated that, with burning a cross on a lawn and supporting them being arrested.
> 
> 
> So, that is what this is about. YOUR SUPPORT OF RACISM AND OPPRESSION.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _*"Got it. THanks. You are against whites being allowed to have group interests while supporting minorities having group interests."*_
> 
> That's not even close to what I said, ya brain-dead racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I described Freedom of Assembly and Speech by white people, and you imagined a violent crime, and throwing them in jail.
> 
> 
> You did not SAY that you are against whites having group interests, but you certainly revealed your position.
> 
> 
> YOu are a rabidly anti-white racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> I am white, not anti-white. And I didn't say what your delusions lead you to believe I said.
> 
> You're truly fucking crazy.
> 
> Again, what I said was you need to post an actual example of a "white interest" for me to be able to comment on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I did post an example of an actual white interest, ie the interest in having and exercising the rights of assembly and speech.
> 
> 
> You imagined a violent crime and arresting them and imprisoning them. When the example was just speech.
> 
> 
> You are obviously a rabidly anti-white racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck racist, "exercising the rights of assembly and speech," is not a "white interest."
Click to expand...


When it is denied them, for being white, it is a white interest. 

As you demonstrated with your fantasy of seeing them in jail for their actions.







> It's an "American interest." Skin color has nothing g at all to do with it.




The different in your reaction to when it done by minorities or whites, shows that skin color does have a lot to do with it. 



> Referring to that as a "white interest" is revealing it as a "racist interest," which is how you expose yourself (again) as a piece of shit fucking racist.



Nope. 

Me saying "white" is not racism. You treating white people differently, and far harsher, than minorities doing the same thing, is racism.


That you can seriously deny this fact, is just a testimony to your powers of self delusion.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just look at the list of speakers they had organized to attend to rally the crowd.... every one of them is an unabashed flaming racist. The main purpose of their rally was to gain power among the alt-right by combining forces of neonazis, KKK and other assorted white supremacists.
> 
> ^^^ That's who attended that rally on the right.
> 
> ^^^ That's who Impeached Trump referred to when he said there were very fine people on both sides.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOne of which have any real name recognition. So, that is not a red flag to hardly anyone.
> 
> 
> As you well know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying doesn't help you.
Click to expand...



Really? You telling me you heard of Mike Enoch before or since that sign?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.
> 
> 
> My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a legitimate non-racist "white interest" in the example of the Indian casino, ie the desire of the local white population as a group, to not have casinos in their area.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lying doesn't help you.
Click to expand...




A group of whites, not wanting a casino in their area is a legit white interest.


Communities have a right to define themselves. 

You are the one lying.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.
> 
> 
> My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a legitimate non-racist "white interest" in the example of the Indian casino, ie the desire of the local white population as a group, to not have casinos in their area.
> 
> 
> That you dismissed it, because it does not fit your fantasy of all white interesting being "white supremacy" is just you being retarded, it is still an fine example.
Click to expand...

Um, dumbass.. When you can provide some evidence that the only locals opposing said casinos were "white" you might begin having a leg to stand on. Then you'd have to figure out how not to make it an anti-"Indian" thing. Why, they can't have a business? They pay their taxes. Take and employ all comers. What's YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM other than racism?


----------



## IM2

CrusaderFrank said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The democrats didn't do that. But you are evidence of why blacks won't vote republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He told his publisher he was "born in Kenya" he told his colleges and universities, his grandmother said he was born in Kenya, so did his half brother, are they all lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All those stories have been debunked. The only people that continue believing them are white racists that still hang on to the birther lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked?
> 
> Obama was the first birther, Hillary was the second
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More debunked bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOLz.  It's not "debunked" just because you don't like it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's debunked because it's been proven to be untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the publishers made up a story that can't be true and you're just a follower
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The story was debunked. You have chosen to believe a lie, because you could not deal with the fact that a black man was running America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obama told his publisher that he was born in Kenya and that sat there for 20 years.  Much later, when it was obvious that Obama had told even his colleges and Universities about his Kenya birth, Obamaroids panicked.  They sealed his foreign student educational records, but what to do about the bio he submitted to his publisher?  They made the publisher fall on her sword.
> 
> See, apparently, all of the authors send in their own biography.  Look on the page with Barack "born in Kenya" Obama  and you see 2 other writers, neither of whom described where they were born, only Barack did that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now, we're to believe that the publisher of her own accord felt that "the first African American President of the Harvard Law Review" was somehow insufficient and she took it upon herself to find out where Barack "born in Kenya" Obama was born and raised, and - darn it- she got it wrong.
> 
> You're gullible.
Click to expand...


That's fake and it has been debunked and recanted.  .


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Example, Tulsi Gabbard seemed like a great candidate to me. Dropped out and endorsed Biden. Wtf?


I had problems with Gabbard, and if they were a viable party, I'd vote green party with a quickness.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
Click to expand...

Thanks.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal is to deny any validity to white interests, because you are so deeply hostile to them.
> 
> 
> My example of a minority interest was an Indian interest in having a casino to get some money for their community.
> 
> 
> 
> Your goal there was to not get yourself tied up trying to actually identify a legitimate non-racist "white interest" and to fling shit. The pattern is beyond boring now. You can give it a rest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> There was a legitimate non-racist "white interest" in the example of the Indian casino, ie the desire of the local white population as a group, to not have casinos in their area.
> 
> 
> That you dismissed it, because it does not fit your fantasy of all white interesting being "white supremacy" is just you being retarded, it is still an fine example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Um, dumbass.. When you can provide some evidence that the only locals opposing said casinos were "white" you might begin having a leg to stand on. Then you'd have to figure out how not to make it an anti-"Indian" thing. Why, they can't have a business? They pay their taxes. Take and employ all comers. What's YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM other than racism?
Click to expand...



1. If other groups or individuals also opposed the casinos, that does not effect the actions or thought of the local whites as a group.


2. No, I do not have to "make it not an anti-Indian thing". YOu do not get to just assume any white interest or action is "wacism", and thus to be denied. 

3. The reasons for opposing the casino are irrelevant. It is legit for a community to not want to have casinos. Again, you do not just get to assume "wacism". 



Three times, in your short post, you just assume racism in a discussion about a very minor white interest. 


THAT IS MY POINT. YOU ARE DEEPLY HOSTILE TO THE IDEA OF WHITES HAVING INTERESTS AND ADVOCATING FOR THEM, WHILE YOU ARE FINE WITH EVERY OTHER GROUP DOING IT.


And that is text book racism.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ghost of a Rider said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Biff_Poindexter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Almost a month later......and the question is still unanswered....
> 
> I will break the news to Diamond & Silk
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The point of this thread was not to discuss actual potential candidates,
> 
> 
> but just to smear your partisan enemies as Evul Wacists.
> 
> 
> That is the point I have addressed and refuted.
> 
> Your pretense otherwise, just shows how dishonest you are, and how your words, are not to be given any weight.
> 
> 
> THis is something we need to keep in mind, as you insist that you have not had your ass kicked.
> 
> 
> Evul Wacists? LOL!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discussed more potential black republican candidates than anyone else did -- especially you...
> 
> you still arguing about a guy in 1996 who you call a traitor now....
> 
> But you guys are used to cheerleading people and then calling them evil traitors later....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How is that any different from Democrats calling certain blacks sellouts and Uncle Toms?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may, I don't think Biff is saying it isn't necessarily. Depends on context. I gather in this case he was referring to this:
> 
> 
> 
> During the time of the 2016 presidential election, Keyes emerged as a strong critic of Donald Trump. He criticized many conservative Christians for supporting "a candidate whose life could be used to illustrate the deceitfully seductive quality of sin summarized in the phrase 'the glamour of evil.'"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Plus he had attacked Romney for effectively supporting gay marriage in Massachusetts. He'd remained a reliable rightwing nutjob prior, including acting as a key (pun intended) birther against Obama. That said, I generally strive to hear what folks like IM2 have to say about such things before flapping my gums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...



He is deferring to you, because of your skin color, and you don't see the racism?

LOL!!!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Deferring to IM2 is racism. It says so right in Correll's dictionary.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> that is text book racism.


In no textbook ever..


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Deferring to IM2 is racism. It says so right in Correll's dictionary.




You are judging his words, not on their content, but on the skin color of the person making them.


YES, THAT IS RACISM, YOU INSUFFERABLE MORON!!!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is text book racism.
> 
> 
> 
> In no textbook ever..
Click to expand...



You have consistently had different rules for different people based on race. And your rules for whites are far harsher than for other races.


That is the text book definition of racism.


YOu are insane.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is text book racism.
> 
> 
> 
> In no textbook ever..
Click to expand...

Let me know when Correll can produce that house resolution or executive order that created anti white discrimination.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deferring to IM2 is racism. It says so right in Correll's dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are judging his words, not on their content, but on the skin color of the person making them.
> 
> 
> YES, THAT IS RACISM, YOU INSUFFERABLE MORON!!!
Click to expand...

When you say "white interests" you are referring to skin color.
Not to the content of any's speech, racist dumbass.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is text book racism.
> 
> 
> 
> In no textbook ever..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have consistently had different rules for different people based on race. And your rules for whites are far harsher than for other races.
> 
> 
> That is the text book definition of racism.
> 
> 
> YOu are insane.
Click to expand...

You own multiple textbooks with conflicting definitions?


----------



## IM2

Correll, shut the fuck up. Please do us all a favor. You must be fucking retarded to believe the shit you post and you are a prime example of the psychosis within the white community that must be addressed. There ain't no such thing as colorblind and not everybody that notices a persons skin color is a fucking racist. But you are.

And there are some things whereby the consideration of a persons skin color is important, such as when you talk to a person of color about their motherfucking experiences as an American. Your bitch ass talks about white interests. When in the hell ever have white interests not been addressed in this motherfucker?

Your white interest is the elimination of non whites or a return to the denial of rights for non whites and extra rights for whites. You have believed a delusion about this country all your life whereby you could ignore what and how things were actually done because you could live comfortably and had every opportunity available for you whenever you decided to take it.

Now you spend your days sniveling because you have to compete because your ass think your skin color entitles you to everything. You're a white male. White males are 31 percent of the population. 2/3's of the American population is not you. But white boys have the majority of jobs, own the most businesses, run all the institutions that control this country, earn the most money and have the most accumulated wealth. And they did this by excluding everybody else from 1776 until 1965 by written law and still today by covert practices. There is no motherfucking anti white discrimination punk, white women even get most of the benefits from affirmative action. So shut the fuck up.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Deferring to IM2 is racism. It says so right in Correll's dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are judging his words, not on their content, but on the skin color of the person making them.
> 
> 
> YES, THAT IS RACISM, YOU INSUFFERABLE MORON!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you say "white interests" you are referring to skin color.
> Not to the content of any's speech, racist dumbass.
Click to expand...


Correct. I'm not judging the content of their speech by their skin color. I support their right to have that right, regardless of skin color.

You are the one that judges them, based on their skin color.


That is why you are a racist, while I am not.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> that is text book racism.
> 
> 
> 
> In no textbook ever..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have consistently had different rules for different people based on race. And your rules for whites are far harsher than for other races.
> 
> 
> That is the text book definition of racism.
> 
> 
> YOu are insane.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You own multiple textbooks with conflicting definitions?
Click to expand...



Racism has as few definitions. None of them fit my actions. Several of them fit yours. 

You have consistently had different rules for different people based on race. And your rules for whites are far harsher than for other races.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Correll, shut the fuck up.



No. So now what you going to do, tough guy?



> Please do us all a favor. You must be fucking retarded to believe the shit you post and you are a prime example of the psychosis within the white community that must be addressed. There ain't no such thing as colorblind and not everybody that notices a persons skin color is a fucking racist. But you are.



I've kindly asked you, to please use the term "Evul Wacist" when you accuse someone of "evul wacism". 

I explained my reasoning, and I think you have to admit it made a lot of sense. 

I mean, your logic, such as it is, IS something that a retarded child would come up with, so.... come on, work with me here.




> And there are some things whereby the consideration of a persons skin color is important, such as when you talk to a person of color about their motherfucking experiences as an American. Your bitch ass talks about white interests. When in the hell ever have white interests not been addressed in this motherfucker?



All the time now and for the last several generations, you race baiting asshole.




> Your white interest is the elimination of non whites or a return to the denial of rights for non whites and extra rights for whites. You have believed a delusion about this country all your life whereby you could ignore what and how things were actually done because you could live comfortably and had every opportunity available for you whenever you decided to take it.




It is nice that you tell me about your fantasies about what you think my "white interests" are.

And by "nice" I mean an "amusing but useless look into your stupid mind".



> Now you spend your days sniveling because you have to compete because your ass think your skin color entitles you to everything. You're a white male. White males are 31 percent of the population. 2/3's of the American population is not you. But white boys have the majority of jobs, own the most businesses, run all the institutions that control this country, earn the most money and have the most accumulated wealth. And they did this by excluding everybody else from 1776 until 1965 by written law and still today by covert practices. There is no motherfucking anti white discrimination punk, white women even get most of the benefits from affirmative action. So shut the fuck up.




Looking back does not justify asshats like you and grumble, discriminating against white people today.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> Racism has as few definitions.


The is the only definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns.
"The textbook definition" asserts there being only one.
Must suck being such a duplicitous gasbag.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Racism has as few definitions.
> 
> 
> 
> The is the only definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns.
> "The textbook definition" asserts there being only one.
> Must suck being such a duplicitous gasbag.
Click to expand...



You sad little man, reduced to playing semantics to try to distract from your hate filled racism.










						Definition of RACISM
					

a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race; also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com
				




"
1*: *a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2a*: *a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b*: *a political or social system founded on racism

3*: *racial prejudice or discrimination
"


Your actions fit all three of them. Mine, none of them. YOu are a racist.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> discriminating against white people today.


Sniveling racist is as sniveling racist does..


Correll said:


> 1*: *a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race


_Oh noes, someone somewhere is "discriminating against white people" I just know it!!!_

There YOU go!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> discriminating against white people today.
> 
> 
> 
> Sniveling racist is as sniveling racist does..
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1*: *a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh noes, someone somewhere is "discriminating against white people" I just know it!!!_
> 
> There YOU go!
Click to expand...


YOu were attacking me on the definition of racism, and when I posted the full definition, all THREE of them, you cut it and ignore my point that your behavior fit all three.

Because you know that anyone who has been reading this thread, can see you are the racist.



Last first.


"3*: *racial prejudice or discrimination "


Your prejudice to whites, has been demonstrated many times in your words in this thread.


My favorite is, when I described a group of whites assembling and speaking out, and you just imagined some crime and them being arrested and jailed for it.


That was very revealing to the level of hate you have, for whites.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> the full definition, all THREE of them


You can't make this shit up.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the full definition, all THREE of them
> 
> 
> 
> You can't make this shit up.
Click to expand...



Wow. Some words have multiple definitions.  I posted the three for racism.


your actions and words and ideas  fit them all, mine do not. YOu are stupid beyond words, you racist prick.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> My favorite is, when I described a group of whites assembling and speaking out, and you just imagined some crime and them being arrested and jailed for it.
> 
> 
> That was very revealing to the level of hate you have, for whites.


Whether simply making shit up or flinging it..
You have an overactive imagination. I'll sure grant you that much


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is, when I described a group of whites assembling and speaking out, and you just imagined some crime and them being arrested and jailed for it.
> 
> 
> That was very revealing to the level of hate you have, for whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether simply making shit up or flinging it..
> You have an overactive imagination. I'll sure grant you that much
Click to expand...



I described whites assembling and speaking out, you were the one that assumed a CROSS BURNING, and them being arrested.

That is not me having on overactive imagination, that is you inventing reasons to rationalize your racist hatred of whites.

Are you seriously denying that is what happened? I can cut and past your insane and racist words, if you hold to your lie, and I will ridicule you mercilessly.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> My favorite is, when I described a group of whites assembling and speaking out, and you just imagined some crime and them being arrested and jailed for it.
> 
> 
> That was very revealing to the level of hate you have, for whites.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether simply making shit up or flinging it..
> You have an overactive imagination. I'll sure grant you that much
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I described whites assembling and speaking out, you were the one that assumed a CROSS BURNING, and them being arrested.
> 
> That is not me having on overactive imagination, that is you inventing reasons to rationalize your racist hatred of whites.
> 
> Are you seriously denying that is what happened? I can cut and past your insane and racist words, if you hold to your lie, and I will ridicule you mercilessly.
Click to expand...

Indubitably. Go for it!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Wow. Some words have multiple definitions. I posted the three for racism.


There are far more than three, sparky. I quoted your first (in full) and you flipped out, crying "you cut it and ignore my point"
\


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. Some words have multiple definitions. I posted the three for racism.
> 
> 
> 
> There are far more than three, sparky. I quoted your first (in full) and you flipped out, crying "you cut it and ignore my point"
Click to expand...



YOu are just playing silly word games to try to dance away from your revealed and obvious racism.


BORING word games.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> YOu are just playing silly word games to try to dance away





> different rules for different people based on race _{...}_ the text book definition of racism.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are just playing silly word games to try to dance away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> different rules for different people based on race _{...}_ the text book definition of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



OMG. I just realized, what you are basing your....


delusion of not being humiliated on.


Dude, 



> 1*: *a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"




You've repeatedly stated that you defer to blacks on any number of issues, because they are more experienced than whites. That is you "believing" that blacks are "superior" to whites. That is you being racist.



> 2a*: *a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
> b*: *a political or social system founded on racism



YOu support a political system where the very mention of "white" is assumed to be "Racism"and worthy of being marginalized, while minorities are allowed, indeed celebrated if they do the same behavior. That is you being racist.



> 3*: *racial prejudice or discrimination




Your hostility to whites, has dripped from nearly every post.

You are an insane racist.


And that fact that you think that the dictionary does not say "different rules, different people" means that you have slimed your way out of this, 


you are also a very stupid racist.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are just playing silly word games to try to dance away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> different rules for different people based on race _{...}_ the text book definition of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG. I just realized, what you are basing your....
> 
> 
> delusion of not being humiliated on.
> 
> 
> Dude,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1*: *a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've repeatedly stated that you defer to blacks on any number of issues, because they are more experienced than whites. That is you "believing" that blacks are "superior" to whites. That is you being racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2a*: *a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
> b*: *a political or social system founded on racism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu support a political system where the very mention of "white" is assumed to be "Racism"and worthy of being marginalized, while minorities are allowed, indeed celebrated if they do the same behavior. That is you being racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3*: *racial prejudice or discrimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your hostility to whites, has dripped from nearly every post.
> 
> You are an insane racist.
> 
> 
> And that fact that you think that the dictionary does not say "different rules, different people" means that you have slimed your way out of this,
> 
> 
> you are also a very stupid racist.
Click to expand...

Such flattery will get you nowhere


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> your....
> 
> 
> delusion of not being humiliated on.


You picked the wrong adversary if that's been your goal here, son.


Correll said:


> the text book definition of racism.





Correll said:


> I posted the three


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> YOu are just playing silly word games to try to dance away
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> different rules for different people based on race _{...}_ the text book definition of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG. I just realized, what you are basing your....
> 
> 
> delusion of not being humiliated on.
> 
> 
> Dude,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1*: *a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've repeatedly stated that you defer to blacks on any number of issues, because they are more experienced than whites. That is you "believing" that blacks are "superior" to whites. That is you being racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2a*: *a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
> b*: *a political or social system founded on racism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOu support a political system where the very mention of "white" is assumed to be "Racism"and worthy of being marginalized, while minorities are allowed, indeed celebrated if they do the same behavior. That is you being racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3*: *racial prejudice or discrimination
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your hostility to whites, has dripped from nearly every post.
> 
> You are an insane racist.
> 
> 
> And that fact that you think that the dictionary does not say "different rules, different people" means that you have slimed your way out of this,
> 
> 
> you are also a very stupid racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such flattery will get you nowhere
Click to expand...



Do you think that whites have an interest in NOT being discriminated against, for affirmative action, or is it "evul wacism" for them to even speak of it, instead of deferring to the "black guy"?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your....
> 
> 
> delusion of not being humiliated on.
> 
> 
> 
> You picked the wrong adversary if that's been your goal here, son.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the text book definition of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the three
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



OMG, now you are trying to pretend that my referring to the singular definition, without qualifying that there might be multiple meanings for the word,


somehow is more important than your blatant racism against whites?

Are you serious?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Do you think that whites have an interest in NOT being discriminated against, for affirmative action,


Full stop. The point of affirmative action being to do what now?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that whites have an interest in NOT being discriminated against, for affirmative action,
> 
> 
> 
> Full stop. The point of affirmative action being to do what now?
Click to expand...



To make up for past discrimination.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your....
> 
> 
> delusion of not being humiliated on.
> 
> 
> 
> You picked the wrong adversary if that's been your goal here, son.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the text book definition of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the three
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, now you are trying to pretend that my referring to the singular definition, without qualifying that there might be multiple meanings for the word,
> 
> 
> somehow is more important than your blatant racism against whites?
> 
> Are you serious?
Click to expand...

Proof that you cannot read. A few of your own words, no less..


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that whites have an interest in NOT being discriminated against, for affirmative action,
> 
> 
> 
> Full stop. The point of affirmative action being to do what now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To make up for past discrimination.
Click to expand...

Good boy. Now STFU and read:





						Human Resources  -  	Affirmative Action
					






					dps.mn.gov
				



(for example)


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> your....
> 
> 
> delusion of not being humiliated on.
> 
> 
> 
> You picked the wrong adversary if that's been your goal here, son.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the text book definition of racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the three
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> OMG, now you are trying to pretend that my referring to the singular definition, without qualifying that there might be multiple meanings for the word,
> 
> 
> somehow is more important than your blatant racism against whites?
> 
> Are you serious?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proof that you cannot read. A few of your own words, no less..
Click to expand...



Your semantics games mean nothing. 


Your racism is clear to everyone. Including you.


YOu are the bad guys. YOU LIBS.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think that whites have an interest in NOT being discriminated against, for affirmative action,
> 
> 
> 
> Full stop. The point of affirmative action being to do what now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> To make up for past discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Good boy. Now STFU and read:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Human Resources  -  	Affirmative Action
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dps.mn.gov
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (for example)
Click to expand...



A fine example of stated policy. Not sure why you felt you had to swear there. Drama?


DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?

Do minorities?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby


Correll said:


> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?


Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
Click to expand...


YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.







						Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				





"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.

City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"


"Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
Click to expand...

Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
Click to expand...


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

How so?

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









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

White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.




					www.adl.org


----------



## katsteve2012

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
Click to expand...


That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.


----------



## Grumblenuts

katsteve2012 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
Click to expand...

Figures and of course not. A union contract doesn't magically disappear just because the employer suddenly notices they may be violating civil rights law. Far too late for that after the contract has been signed by both parties, the tests have given, the results tabulated, and publicly reported. Hell, I knew the moment I mentioned "case" sparky would think _"Ah, a lawsuit.. that's the ticket!"_


Correll said:


> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.


So, gratuitous abuse of "gaslighting" aside, sparky's clearly conflating the overall purpose of AA (which I still don't believe he understands) -with- an employer getting scared and screwing themself due to poor reading of civil rights law minutia.. He really is a dope. No other conclusion remains possible at this point.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
Click to expand...





Because the city was right to be afraid of being sued. That is the way that people like you, whom infest the government agencies that oversee AA, think. 


Because every employer in the country knows that. 


So, even though this one mostly white group, manged to win, this one time, every employer is still looking to cover their ass to avoid having to fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if they get accused of "evul wacism".

So, anti-white discrimination is the law of the land. 

AND once demographic shift gives you that lib court you've been wanting, it will be openly and blatantly endorsed all the way to the top.

That is a white interest.


You know it. I know it. YOu know that I know that you know it.

So, your lies are beyond pathetic.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
Click to expand...



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

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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
Click to expand...



THe city's logic was sound. The Court was full of shit in the stated reasons for their ruling. 


And every employer in the country knows that, and is still motivated to cover their ass, to protect from being sued.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe city's logic was sound. The Court was full of shit in the stated reasons for their ruling.
> 
> 
> And every employer in the country knows that, and is still motivated to cover their ass, to protect from being sued.
Click to expand...

Fear, fear, fear! 
Hey, here's an idea.. Collective bargaining works! Protects the employees.. Protects the employer.. Win Win!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?
Click to expand...



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


----------



## Grumblenuts

What arguments?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> THe city's logic was sound. The Court was full of shit in the stated reasons for their ruling.
> 
> 
> And every employer in the country knows that, and is still motivated to cover their ass, to protect from being sued.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fear, fear, fear!
> Hey, here's an idea.. Collective bargaining works! Protects the employees.. Protects the employer.. Win Win!
Click to expand...



Unions side with the big government dems, and do not protect their workers interests.


You know that. 


The city's logic was sound. And every employer in the country is covering their ass the same way.


Your pretense that this is about preventing discrimination, instead of just reversing it,


is silly.

NO ONE IS BUYING THAT SHIT.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> What arguments?



The city's stated reasons made complete sense. The Court's ruling was obvious bullshit. Like I said, and you cut instead of addressing, you pussy.


----------



## Grumblenuts

O'Reilly?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Sorry, your pointing and  gesticulating wildly while screaming your irrational fears in public constitutes "arguments" not.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> O'Reilly?



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

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Sorry, your pointing and  gesticulating wildly while screaming your irrational fears in public constitutes "arguments" not.





I linked to a Supreme Court case and made a point about the stated reasoning of the ruling.


You are a lying asshole.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
Click to expand...

Collective bargaining.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
Click to expand...


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

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

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

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

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


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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collective bargaining.
Click to expand...



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


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

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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
Click to expand...


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

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

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








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



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



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




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



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




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




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



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


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

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





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




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

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

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


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


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


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


THey lied to you. They set you up. 


You going to take that, and keep playing along?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collective bargaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is an useful tool against employers. Not against the power of the State, especially when combined with the type of social mob and political correctness tactics of the Left.
> 
> 
> Your point in lying about white interest only being "white supremacy" is so that whites cannot defend their interests against this discrimination and oppression,
> 
> and end up having to "defer to the black guy" which is what you want, because you are an anti-white racist.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collective bargaining
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Collective bargaining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is an useful tool against employers. Not against the power of the State, especially when combined with the type of social mob and political correctness tactics of the Left.
> 
> 
> Your point in lying about white interest only being "white supremacy" is so that whites cannot defend their interests against this discrimination and oppression,
> 
> and end up having to "defer to the black guy" which is what you want, because you are an anti-white racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm someone who's comfortable in their skin. You, on the other hand, are irrationally defensive about yours.  We're all just people, dopey. Sharing the same boat. Like it or not. Might as well be generous and considerate as possible. Cryin' won't help ya.
Click to expand...



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


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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


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


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


----------



## Grumblenuts

> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.


----------



## Grumblenuts

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have attacked me for even using the word "white" to discuss "white people" as a group.
> 
> 
> 
> Lying to yourself won't help ya either.
> "white issues", dope.
Click to expand...


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


You are an insanely racist person.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
Click to expand...




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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


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



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

Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
Click to expand...


Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected


Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
Click to expand...

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

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








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



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



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




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



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




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




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



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


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

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





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




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

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

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


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


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


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


THey lied to you. They set you up.


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

Who are "they"?

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

How did "they" "set me up"?

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

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

No one else is.

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

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

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

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

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

Or does your party loyalty supercede your objectivity?


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
Click to expand...


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








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



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



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




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



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




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




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



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


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

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





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




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

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

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


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


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


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


THey lied to you. They set you up.


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

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

How did "they" "set me up"?

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

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

No one else is.

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




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

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

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


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
Click to expand...


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

How did "they" "set me up"?

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

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

No one else is.

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




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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
> 
> How did "they" "set me up"?
> 
> From my POV,  no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
> 
> I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
> 
> No one else is.
> 
> Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
Click to expand...





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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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




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


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


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



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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.
> 
> Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.
Click to expand...

Now all know who you are. Fine admission.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop cutting my posts down to nothing, to avoid my arguments, like the coward you are, pussy?
Click to expand...

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.
> 
> Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?
Click to expand...


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


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

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


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now all know who you are. Fine admission.
Click to expand...




I have not claimed that, you drooling retard. YOUR post just did that. You drooling retard.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop cutting my posts down to nothing, to avoid my arguments, like the coward you are, pussy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a clue or two for ya, sparky. Here, for example, I'm provided two simple options. Neither involving cutting or pasting. I can simply hit the big blue "Reply" button and quote everything (which I obviously did in this instance) -or- I can highlight just the content I intend to address (which would have obviously been the more appropriate choice in this instance) and "Reply" to that. When I choose the latter it's because I don't want my comments misconstrued as necessarily applicable to anything beyond what I've quoted. It's called being considerate, especially to the reader. Dumbass.
Click to expand...




Except that you keep cutting the portion of my post, where I make my argument. That is cowardice of you.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.
> 
> Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a simple question, ie the question a simple person could come up with.
> 
> 
> No, I am happy that I do not have people like you, making excuses for me, or insulting my intelligence by deferring to me, based on my skin color.
> 
> I think that would be "dis-empowering", and creepy as hell.
Click to expand...

Copy that, Honky.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.
> 
> Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a simple question, ie the question a simple person could come up with.
> 
> 
> No, I am happy that I do not have people like you, making excuses for me, or insulting my intelligence by deferring to me, based on my skin color.
> 
> I think that would be "dis-empowering", and creepy as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Copy that, Honky.
Click to expand...



i want my arguments and ideas to be judged on their merits, not just accepted and given a pass, because of my skin color, that way you do for black guys.


It is insulting to them. And creepy. 


Do you understand that?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now all know who you are. Fine admission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed that, you drooling retard. YOUR post just did that. You drooling retard.
Click to expand...

Your claim "ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist." is right there for all to see, ninny. Clearly meaning you believe:
1. The author was saying "stating a culture has a problem is racist."
2. The author is "a lying asshole."
Now deny it.. Go ahead.. You know you want to..


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop cutting my posts down to nothing, to avoid my arguments, like the coward you are, pussy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a clue or two for ya, sparky. Here, for example, I'm provided two simple options. Neither involving cutting or pasting. I can simply hit the big blue "Reply" button and quote everything (which I obviously did in this instance) -or- I can highlight just the content I intend to address (which would have obviously been the more appropriate choice in this instance) and "Reply" to that. When I choose the latter it's because I don't want my comments misconstrued as necessarily applicable to anything beyond what I've quoted. It's called being considerate, especially to the reader. Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you keep cutting the portion of my post, where I make my argument. That is cowardice of you.
Click to expand...

What you imagine to be "argument" worthy of addressing is just that. If you were really feeling butthurt about something having gone neglected you would simply repeat it like a normal human being.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now all know who you are. Fine admission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed that, you drooling retard. YOUR post just did that. You drooling retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim "ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist." is right there for all to see, ninny. Clearly meaning you believe:
> 1. The author was saying "stating a culture has a problem is racist."
> 2. The author is "a lying asshole."
> Now deny it.. Go ahead.. You know you want to..
Click to expand...




No, I don't want to. That was exactly what I said. That was my intent. The Author is a lying asshole.


Here is where he said it, cut and pasted from above. Bolding added.



"they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from* the inferiority of Black culture *and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people. (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)

*Let’s be clear: this is racist,*  "


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you stop cutting my posts down to nothing, to avoid my arguments, like the coward you are, pussy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a clue or two for ya, sparky. Here, for example, I'm provided two simple options. Neither involving cutting or pasting. I can simply hit the big blue "Reply" button and quote everything (which I obviously did in this instance) -or- I can highlight just the content I intend to address (which would have obviously been the more appropriate choice in this instance) and "Reply" to that. When I choose the latter it's because I don't want my comments misconstrued as necessarily applicable to anything beyond what I've quoted. It's called being considerate, especially to the reader. Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except that you keep cutting the portion of my post, where I make my argument. That is cowardice of you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you imagine to be "argument" worthy of addressing is just that. If you were really feeling butthurt about something having gone neglected you would simply repeat it like a normal human being.
Click to expand...



Pointing out that you are cutting away my argument, before addressing my conclusion, if not lying about my conclusion or argument, 


is not being "butthurt" you fucking asshole.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.
> 
> Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a simple question, ie the question a simple person could come up with.
> 
> 
> No, I am happy that I do not have people like you, making excuses for me, or insulting my intelligence by deferring to me, based on my skin color.
> 
> I think that would be "dis-empowering", and creepy as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Copy that, Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i want my arguments and ideas to be judged on their merits, not just accepted and given a pass, because of my skin color, that way you do for black guys.
> 
> 
> It is insulting to them. And creepy.
> 
> 
> Do you understand that?
Click to expand...

No, but your deliberate mischaracterization of my position sure is creepy though.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.
> 
> Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a simple question, ie the question a simple person could come up with.
> 
> 
> No, I am happy that I do not have people like you, making excuses for me, or insulting my intelligence by deferring to me, based on my skin color.
> 
> I think that would be "dis-empowering", and creepy as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Copy that, Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i want my arguments and ideas to be judged on their merits, not just accepted and given a pass, because of my skin color, that way you do for black guys.
> 
> 
> It is insulting to them. And creepy.
> 
> 
> Do you understand that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but your deliberate mischaracterization of my position sure is creepy though.
Click to expand...



You've stated that you like to "defer to blacks" on issues that at all involve or address them.

"Give a pass to" is my wording of that concept.

How have I mis-characterized your cuck position?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now all know who you are. Fine admission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed that, you drooling retard. YOUR post just did that. You drooling retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim "ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist." is right there for all to see, ninny. Clearly meaning you believe:
> 1. The author was saying "stating a culture has a problem is racist."
> 2. The author is "a lying asshole."
> Now deny it.. Go ahead.. You know you want to..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want to. That was exactly what I said. That was my intent. The Author is a lying asshole.
> 
> 
> Here is where he said it, cut and pasted from above. Bolding added.
> 
> 
> 
> "they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from* the inferiority of Black culture *and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people. (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> *Let’s be clear: this is racist,*  "
Click to expand...

Excellent. So you believe the author was simply stating a personal opinion there rather than reporting the actual findings from the study. Because you're unbelievably shallow and stupid..  

Okay, I can believe that.. But what does that say about me continuing to talk to you?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.
> 
> Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a simple question, ie the question a simple person could come up with.
> 
> 
> No, I am happy that I do not have people like you, making excuses for me, or insulting my intelligence by deferring to me, based on my skin color.
> 
> I think that would be "dis-empowering", and creepy as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Copy that, Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i want my arguments and ideas to be judged on their merits, not just accepted and given a pass, because of my skin color, that way you do for black guys.
> 
> 
> It is insulting to them. And creepy.
> 
> 
> Do you understand that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but your deliberate mischaracterization of my position sure is creepy though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've stated that you like to "defer to blacks" on issues that at all involve or address them.
Click to expand...

Not exactly, but wtf ever!


> "Give a pass to" is my wording of that concept.
> 
> How have I mis-characterized your cuck position?


Never mind, dickweed.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now all know who you are. Fine admission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed that, you drooling retard. YOUR post just did that. You drooling retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim "ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist." is right there for all to see, ninny. Clearly meaning you believe:
> 1. The author was saying "stating a culture has a problem is racist."
> 2. The author is "a lying asshole."
> Now deny it.. Go ahead.. You know you want to..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want to. That was exactly what I said. That was my intent. The Author is a lying asshole.
> 
> 
> Here is where he said it, cut and pasted from above. Bolding added.
> 
> 
> 
> "they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from* the inferiority of Black culture *and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people. (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> *Let’s be clear: this is racist,*  "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent. So you believe the author was simply stating a personal opinion there rather than reporting the actual findings from the study. Because you're unbelievably shallow and stupid..
> 
> Okay, I can believe that.. But what does that say about me continuing to talk to you?
Click to expand...


His conclusion of "*Let’s be clear: this is racist,*" is stating his "personal opinion", you drooling retard.


Not all cultures are equal. All cultures have problems. A white person, asked about black culture, discussing their opinion about the problems of black culture, is not "racist".

And anyone that thinks it is, is a racist asshole.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps Correll's ongoing persecution complex here is really due to envy more than racism. He's pissed that he was born white and feels cheated..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, that is the logical fallacy of proof by ridicule and using such tactics is an admission that you know you cannot win a real debate on this issue.
> 
> Seriously. YOu are being an asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a simple question. Are you pissed about being born "white"? Do you pine for darker skin? Do you want what they have? Is that why you continue being so ridiculously defensive about your skin color here or not?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a simple question, ie the question a simple person could come up with.
> 
> 
> No, I am happy that I do not have people like you, making excuses for me, or insulting my intelligence by deferring to me, based on my skin color.
> 
> I think that would be "dis-empowering", and creepy as hell.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Copy that, Honky.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i want my arguments and ideas to be judged on their merits, not just accepted and given a pass, because of my skin color, that way you do for black guys.
> 
> 
> It is insulting to them. And creepy.
> 
> 
> Do you understand that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, but your deliberate mischaracterization of my position sure is creepy though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've stated that you like to "defer to blacks" on issues that at all involve or address them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not exactly, but wtf ever!
> 
> 
> 
> "Give a pass to" is my wording of that concept.
> 
> How have I mis-characterized your cuck position?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Never mind, dickweed.
Click to expand...



Got it. Close enough that even you feel like a moron at the though to quibbling over it.


So, your question is answered. I do not envy them. I feel bad for them, to have to put up with having you on their side.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now all know who you are. Fine admission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed that, you drooling retard. YOUR post just did that. You drooling retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim "ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist." is right there for all to see, ninny. Clearly meaning you believe:
> 1. The author was saying "stating a culture has a problem is racist."
> 2. The author is "a lying asshole."
> Now deny it.. Go ahead.. You know you want to..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want to. That was exactly what I said. That was my intent. The Author is a lying asshole.
> 
> 
> Here is where he said it, cut and pasted from above. Bolding added.
> 
> 
> 
> "they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from* the inferiority of Black culture *and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people. (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> *Let’s be clear: this is racist,*  "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent. So you believe the author was simply stating a personal opinion there rather than reporting the actual findings from the study. Because you're unbelievably shallow and stupid..
> 
> Okay, I can believe that.. But what does that say about me continuing to talk to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His conclusion of "*Let’s be clear: this is racist,*" is stating his "personal opinion", you drooling retard.
Click to expand...

Great. So you simply don't understand or appreciate the difference between a professional doing their job, summarizing the findings of a study, and some layman (like you) just expressing their "personal opinion." Scientifically established fact vs. bullshit.
Shallow √
Stupid √


> Not all cultures are equal. All cultures have problems. A white person, asked about black culture, discussing their opinion about the problems of black culture, is not "racist".
> 
> And anyone that thinks it is, is a racist asshole.


That would depend on the specific opinions expressed, sparky. All non sequitur regarding this report in any case.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sociologists Michael Emerson and Christian Smith (_Divided by Faith_, 2000) interviewed White evangelical Christians and found that they (like most other White Americans) do not believe that either history or discrimination can explain racialization (on-going racial inequality).  Neither do they believe that people of color are genetically inferior to Whites.  As a result, and almost by default, they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from the inferiority of Black culture and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people.  (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> Let’s be clear: this is racist, and it taps into cultural stereotypes that have been around for generations.  But it is important to understand that most White people who hold these views do not believe that they are racist.  For one thing, their image of a racist is a Klansman or a neo-Nazi.  A racist is, by their definition, an outright bigot.  Anything short of that is given a pass.  Furthermore, most White people think that racism is believing in the genetic inferiority of a group of people..  They reject the idea of genetic inferiority, so by that logic as well, they can’t be racist.
> 
> Most important of all, from the perspective of many White people, they are merely drawing a logical conclusion from the facts.
> 
> 
> The playing field is level.
> But some people aren’t doing as well as others.
> Therefore, they must be to blame, either individually, collectively, or both.
> Everything else flows from there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now all know who you are. Fine admission.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not claimed that, you drooling retard. YOUR post just did that. You drooling retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your claim "ONly a lying asshole would claim that stating a culture has a problem is racist." is right there for all to see, ninny. Clearly meaning you believe:
> 1. The author was saying "stating a culture has a problem is racist."
> 2. The author is "a lying asshole."
> Now deny it.. Go ahead.. You know you want to..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't want to. That was exactly what I said. That was my intent. The Author is a lying asshole.
> 
> 
> Here is where he said it, cut and pasted from above. Bolding added.
> 
> 
> 
> "they conclude that contemporary inequality stems from* the inferiority of Black culture *and from the fact that Black people are lazier, on average, than White people. (Almost all the White interviewees in the study focused on Black people specifically, rather than on people of color more generally.)
> 
> *Let’s be clear: this is racist,*  "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent. So you believe the author was simply stating a personal opinion there rather than reporting the actual findings from the study. Because you're unbelievably shallow and stupid..
> 
> Okay, I can believe that.. But what does that say about me continuing to talk to you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His conclusion of "*Let’s be clear: this is racist,*" is stating his "personal opinion", you drooling retard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great. So you simply don't understand or appreciate the difference between a professional doing their job, summarizing the findings of a study, and some layman (like you) just expressing their "personal opinion." Scientifically established fact vs. bullshit.
> Shallow √
> Stupid √
> 
> 
> 
> Not all cultures are equal. All cultures have problems. A white person, asked about black culture, discussing their opinion about the problems of black culture, is not "racist".
> 
> And anyone that thinks it is, is a racist asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That would depend on the specific opinions expressed, sparky. All non sequitur regarding this report in any case.
Click to expand...



The findings being discussed, were white people discussing if black culture "inferiority" (and it is not clear that that was THEIR words, or the "researchers"), 

could explain "racial inequality".

YOUR excerpt, showed the "researcher" expressing his personal opinion that such discussion was "racist", stated in such a way, that strongly implied that that was inherent in the act.


Which is him disagreeing with what you just posted, btw, in case you missed that.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Professional findings based on facts, dopey.


> Duke University Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva summarizes these perspectives by saying that we now have _Racism without Racists_ (2003). There aren’t as many people who wear sheets and burn crosses as there used to be.  But racism persists because people of color continue to have less access to power and resources (the vertical dimension of race) and because the attitudes of the majority continue to be shaped by their efforts to explain and justify that disparity.


----------



## Grumblenuts

So, when asked why blacks, on average, have worse jobs, incomes, and housing than whites, do you generally agree or disagree with the latest reported views of white Americans found in the General Social Survey , Social Trends in American Life above?

Do you believe it's okay or not okay to discriminate when selling a home?
Would you want to live in a place where half your neighbors were black or not?
Would you oppose having a close relative marry a black person or not?
Would you say whites are more hard working than blacks or not?
Would you say most blacks lack the motivation or willpower to pull themselves out of poverty or not?
Would you say blacks shouldn't push themselves where not wanted or not?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Professional findings based on facts, dopey.
> 
> 
> 
> Duke University Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva summarizes these perspectives by saying that we now have _Racism without Racists_ (2003). There aren’t as many people who wear sheets and burn crosses as there used to be.  But racism persists because people of color continue to have less access to power and resources (the vertical dimension of race) and because the attitudes of the majority continue to be shaped by their efforts to explain and justify that disparity.
Click to expand...








Grumblenuts said:


> Professional findings based on facts, dopey.
> 
> 
> 
> Duke University Sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva summarizes these perspectives by saying that we now have _Racism without Racists_ (2003). There aren’t as many people who wear sheets and burn crosses as there used to be.  But racism persists because people of color continue to have less access to power and resources (the vertical dimension of race) and because the attitudes of the majority continue to be shaped by their efforts to explain and justify that disparity.
Click to expand...



What percentage of that 45% that "say that blacks don't have the willpower to pull themselves out of poverty" are liberals who picked that option, because they think the forces of Evul Wacism are too strong for anyone to do it by themselves?


----------



## Grumblenuts

> What percentage of that 45% that "say that blacks don't have the willpower to pull themselves out of poverty" are liberals who picked that option, because they think the forces of Evul Wacism are too strong for anyone to do it by themselves?


So let the record show that the cowardly defendant, Mr. Weasel, predictably, had absolutely no intelligible response to the simple questions posed to him.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> *About the GSS*
> 
> For more than four decades, the General Social Survey (GSS) has studied the growing complexity of American society. It is the only full-probability, personal-interview survey designed to monitor changes in both social characteristics and attitudes currently being conducted in the United States.


----------



## IM2

*"What percentage of that 45% that "say that blacks don't have the willpower to pull themselves out of poverty" are liberals who picked that option, because they think the forces of Evul Wacism are too strong for anyone to do it by themselves?"

Let's look at what MLK had to say about a comment like this:*


The answer is none, because whites have been lifted out of poverty by a myriad of government programs that blacks and other non whites were excluded from. So today we have whites living in a delusion talking about that evul wacism when they were lifted up by the motherfucking government.

I guess I have to show this until some of these idiots understand the truth.


----------



## IM2

katsteve2012 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
Click to expand...


What is not mentioned was that the fire department had not been meeting anti discrimination guidelines. That is the only reason they would have been worried after they gave a test the was a standard procedure for promotion.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?
Click to expand...

There is no such thing as anti white discrimnation. Only white supremacists believe that.


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is not mentioned was that the fire department had not been meeting anti discrimination guidelines. That is the only reason they would have been worried after they gave a test the was a standard procedure for promotion.
Click to expand...

I see it this way. They were irrationally scared because the current test results only promoted whites. Irrationally because they had a union contract. One with all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed and double checked by expensive law firms representing both parties at the negotiating table. Resulting in a test that, as Judge Kennedy so eloquently summarized in the ruling, had AA built in. So to second guess the results, as the Second District and Correll desired, would in effect be asking to double the AA already applied.

No test is going to be perfect. A percentage range of error must be presumed. So given, after many years, the test didn't result in the intended amount of minority applicants being promoted, that would be the appropriate time to complain and possibly seek legal redress.

ALL the above hinges upon having that signed union contract. So when Correll cries about all employers living in fear of "disparate impact" - no, that would be all non-union employers above a minimum threshold of employees. They're living on the thin edge, all free and breezy. Well, there's a price for that. Beyond bribing government officials.. Can't take the heat..

Also, with no collective bargaining, no union, it's largely just "at will" employment out there any more. The courts will generally laugh off such complaints today. No standing. An employer can hire and fire "at will" with very few caveats. Corporatocracy baby. Gotta love it. So,.. all you Amazon whse lumpers, you "essential workers" being treated like shit out there.. stay home.. STRIKE!  No point in delaying the inevitable any longer.. They're already killing you for peanuts.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
> 
> How did "they" "set me up"?
> 
> From my POV,  no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
> 
> I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
> 
> No one else is.
> 
> Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
> 
> 2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
> 
> 3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
Click to expand...



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

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

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

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

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




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


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


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



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

And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?


Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.

I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal  opinion.


We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.

It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.

Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did  YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that  the other half are Nazis"?

That's a "sky is falling" statement.

And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics. 

Attacking the media.









						Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
					

The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...




					www.commondreams.org


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> What percentage of that 45% that "say that blacks don't have the willpower to pull themselves out of poverty" are liberals who picked that option, because they think the forces of Evul Wacism are too strong for anyone to do it by themselves?
> 
> 
> 
> So let the record show that the cowardly defendant, Mr. Weasel, predictably, had absolutely no intelligible response to the simple questions posed to him.
Click to expand...



The point is, that you are assuming one possible motive to complex questions.


RACISM, is believing a RACE is inferior or superior because of inherent RACIAL characteristics. 


I've seen a lot of people argue that success is primarily driven by WHO you know, not what you know. THose people are going to be in a weird place with this question, because they don't believe that ANYONE , BLACK OR WHITE, uses "willpower" to pull themselves out of poverty.

And you and your researcher would count them as "racist".


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is not mentioned was that the fire department had not been meeting anti discrimination guidelines. That is the only reason they would have been worried after they gave a test the was a standard procedure for promotion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see it this way. They were irrationally scared because the current test results only promoted whites. Irrationally because they had a union contract. One with all the "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed and double checked by expensive law firms representing both parties at the negotiating table. Resulting in a test that, as Judge Kennedy so eloquently summarized in the ruling, had AA built in. So to second guess the results, as the Second District and Correll desired, would in effect be asking to double the AA already applied.
> 
> No test is going to be perfect. A percentage range of error must be presumed. So given, after many years, the test didn't result in the intended amount of minority applicants being promoted, that would be the appropriate time to complain and possibly seek legal redress.
> 
> ALL the above hinges upon having that signed union contract. So when Correll cries about all employers living in fear of "disparate impact" - no, that would be all non-union employers above a minimum threshold of employees. They're living on the thin edge, all free and breezy. Well, there's a price for that. Beyond bribing government officials.. Can't take the heat..
> 
> Also, with no collective bargaining, no union, it's largely just "at will" employment out there any more. The courts will generally laugh off such complaints today. No standing. An employer can hire and fire "at will" with very few caveats. Corporatocracy baby. Gotta love it. So,.. all you Amazon whse lumpers, you "essential workers" being treated like shit out there.. stay home.. STRIKE!  No point in delaying the inevitable any longer.. They're already killing you for peanuts.
Click to expand...




The test was not the problem. The problem was that the blacks did not score well enough and thus the city could not promote blacks, which they correctly felt they needed to, or risk getting sued.


This issue is universal, with A the various problems in the black community, reducing qualified candidates below proportional levels, and B. people like IM2 and you in positions of power ready to assume racism at the drop of a hat.


And by universal I mean, EVERY EMPLOYER AND SCHOOL OR ANYTHING that could be sued for "Discrimination" has to discriminate against more qualified whites to meet expected proportional representation.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
> 
> How did "they" "set me up"?
> 
> From my POV,  no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
> 
> I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
> 
> No one else is.
> 
> Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
> 
> 2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
> 
> 3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
> 
> Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
> 
> That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
> 
> Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
> 
> You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
Click to expand...





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


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


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



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

And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?


Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.

I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal  opinion.


We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.

It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.

Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did  YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that  the other half are Nazis"?

That's a "sky is falling" statement.

And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.

Attacking the media.









						Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
					

The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...




					www.commondreams.org
				



[/QUOTE]





1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.


2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies.  And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.


3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated.  They deserve to be attacked. A lot.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> *"What percentage of that 45% that "say that blacks don't have the willpower to pull themselves out of poverty" are liberals who picked that option, because they think the forces of Evul Wacism are too strong for anyone to do it by themselves?"
> 
> Let's look at what MLK had to say about a comment like this:*
> 
> 
> The answer is none, because whites have been lifted out of poverty by a myriad of government programs that blacks and other non whites were excluded from. So today we have whites living in a delusion talking about that evul wacism when they were lifted up by the motherfucking government.
> 
> I guess I have to show this until some of these idiots understand the truth.





Dude. I'm not going to waste time watching vids from you. You got a point to make, make it.


Your complaint is based on programs long gone, and ignores the massive government force brought to bear to help people like you for the last 50 years, at the expense of people like me.

So, go fuck yourself.


----------



## katsteve2012

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
> 
> How did "they" "set me up"?
> 
> From my POV,  no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
> 
> I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
> 
> No one else is.
> 
> Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
> 
> 2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
> 
> 3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
> 
> Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
> 
> That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
> 
> Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
> 
> You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you.  THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
> 
> 
> "Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
Click to expand...


And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?


Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
You obviously achieved both.

I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal  opinion.


We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.

It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.

Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did  YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that  the other half are Nazis"?

That's a "sky is falling" statement.

And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.

Attacking the media.









						Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
					

The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...




					www.commondreams.org
				



[/QUOTE]





1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.


2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies.  And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.


3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated.  They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
[/QUOTE]


"You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?

How does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?

Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.

Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.

You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this forum and is not indicative of any widespread discrimination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is not mentioned was that the fire department had not been meeting anti discrimination guidelines. That is the only reason they would have been worried after they gave a test the was a standard procedure for promotion.
Click to expand...



Worried why? Oh, because if they did not promote enough blacks, they could get sued, and the people from the government would be people like you, from schools where people like you taught them, 

so the city discriminated against the more qualified whites.


And the only reason we know about it, is the whites fought it all the way to the supreme court.


The motive the city had, are still universal in our society.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> anti-white discrimination is the law of the land.
> 
> 
> 
> There ya go, dopey. Scream "I'm a proud racist!" now why don'tcha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no such thing as anti white discrimnation. Only white supremacists believe that.
Click to expand...



That is obviously not true. I have linked to a representative example, and the issues that caused that are still national policy.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
> 
> How did "they" "set me up"?
> 
> From my POV,  no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
> 
> I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
> 
> No one else is.
> 
> Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
> 
> 2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
> 
> 3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
> 
> Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
> 
> That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
> 
> Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
> 
> You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you.  THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
> 
> 
> "Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
> 
> 
> Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
> You obviously achieved both.
> 
> I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal  opinion.
> 
> 
> We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
> 
> It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
> 
> Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did  YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that  the other half are Nazis"?
> 
> That's a "sky is falling" statement.
> 
> And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
> 
> Attacking the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
> 
> 
> The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.commondreams.org
Click to expand...






1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.


2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies.  And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.


3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated.  They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
[/QUOTE]


"You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?

His does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?

Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.

Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.

You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
[/QUOTE]


1. I've repeatedly pointed out that my source is the full transcripts. 

2. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like you are going to just accept such obvious lies about people like me. 

3. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like me, are pissed off because we keep being held responsible for shit we never did or said, because people like you are believing really obvious lies.

4. This shit is tearing this country apart.

5. Party loyalty is an issue to communication and unity. It pales in comparison to shit like the lie of "very nice people".


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
> 
> How did "they" "set me up"?
> 
> From my POV,  no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
> 
> I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
> 
> No one else is.
> 
> Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
> 
> 2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
> 
> 3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
> 
> Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
> 
> That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
> 
> Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
> 
> You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you.  THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
> 
> 
> "Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
> 
> 
> Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
> You obviously achieved both.
> 
> I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal  opinion.
> 
> 
> We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
> 
> It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
> 
> Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did  YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that  the other half are Nazis"?
> 
> That's a "sky is falling" statement.
> 
> And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
> 
> Attacking the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
> 
> 
> The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.commondreams.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
> 
> 
> 2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies.  And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
> 
> 
> 3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated.  They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
Click to expand...



"You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?

His does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?

Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.

Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.

You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
[/QUOTE]


1. I've repeatedly pointed out that my source is the full transcripts.

2. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like you are going to just accept such obvious lies about people like me.

3. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like me, are pissed off because we keep being held responsible for shit we never did or said, because people like you are believing really obvious lies.

4. This shit is tearing this country apart.

5. Party loyalty is an issue to communication and unity. It pales in comparison to shit like the lie of "very nice people".
[/QUOTE]

Seriously? 

1. The transcripts of one isolated case is not indicative of an entire country......or even half of it. 

2. Name what "lies" about you personally that I've "accepted". I don't know anything about  you personally. Nor do you know me.

3. What am I "holding YOU responsible for"? Nothing to my knowledge. 

4. Maybe you believe that YOUR part of the country is "being torn apart". But you don't speak for mine. 

5. Trump stated "fine people on both sides"  He didn't use the term "very nice people". As far as party loyalty goes, there is a difference between that and blind loyalty to one side. That's far more divisive than a difference of perception or interpretation of what a self serving politician says about a rally that people had various reasons for attending.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
> 
> How did "they" "set me up"?
> 
> From my POV,  no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
> 
> I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
> 
> No one else is.
> 
> Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
> 
> 2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
> 
> 3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
> 
> Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
> 
> That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
> 
> Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
> 
> You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you.  THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
> 
> 
> "Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
> 
> 
> Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
> You obviously achieved both.
> 
> I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal  opinion.
> 
> 
> We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
> 
> It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
> 
> Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did  YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that  the other half are Nazis"?
> 
> That's a "sky is falling" statement.
> 
> And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
> 
> Attacking the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
> 
> 
> The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.commondreams.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
> 
> 
> 2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies.  And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
> 
> 
> 3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated.  They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?
> 
> His does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?
> 
> Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.
> 
> Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.
> 
> You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
Click to expand...



1. I've repeatedly pointed out that my source is the full transcripts.

2. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like you are going to just accept such obvious lies about people like me.

3. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like me, are pissed off because we keep being held responsible for shit we never did or said, because people like you are believing really obvious lies.

4. This shit is tearing this country apart.

5. Party loyalty is an issue to communication and unity. It pales in comparison to shit like the lie of "very nice people".
[/QUOTE]

Seriously?

1. The transcripts of one isolated case is not indicative of an entire country......or even half of it.

2. Name what "lies" about you personally that I've "accepted". I don't know anything about  you personally. Nor do you know me.

3. What am I "holding YOU responsible for"? Nothing to my knowledge.

4. Maybe you believe that YOUR part of the country is "being torn apart". But you don't speak for mine.

5. Trump stated "fine people on both sides"  He didn't use the term "very nice people". As far as party loyalty goes, there is a difference between that and blind loyalty to one side. That's far more divisive than a difference of perception or interpretation of what a self serving politician says about a rally that people had various reasons for attending.
[/QUOTE]



Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.


The media has lied to everyone in the country, and those on your side of the divide believe (or pretend to believe) that the President of the United States said that neo-nazis are "fine people".

That reflects not only on him, but on everyone that supports him.


So many people on your side of the aisle believe that anyone who opposes them has to be stupid or evil. 


ON our side, I can tell you, we are increasingly tired of being slammed based on bullshit like that.



As you play along with that lie, and others like it, you are tearing this country apart.


----------



## Grumblenuts

> Throughout his remarks he refused to” call out white supremacists by name.
> Then, more than 48 hours after the rally, after dozens of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and even the maker of the torches used at the rally firmly denounced the white supremacists by name, Trump finally issued a firmer condemnation.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Throughout his remarks he refused to” call out white supremacists by name.
> Then, more than 48 hours after the rally, after dozens of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle and even the maker of the torches used at the rally firmly denounced the white supremacists by name, Trump finally issued a firmer condemnation.
Click to expand...



He probably was doubtful that the rally was all "white supremacist".

After all, such rallies rarely get into double digits. 


Initial reports did not make much sense. A white supremacist rally in the hundreds? In this day and age?


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did that widdle "F' hurt your feelings? Ahh, poor baby
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> DO white people have any interest in how that is implemented?
> 
> Do minorities?
> 
> 
> 
> Will you ever have a point? I seriously doubt it..
> I certainly can imagine some weird bunch of us feeling "discriminated against" by a policy specifically designed to combat discrimination, but idiots abound. Policy catering to the dumbest among us would just be stupid. Your goal here of building a case for that has been ill-considered from the start. The only people actually gathering together because "white"-while-opposed-to-a-minority's-stated-interests are racists. Find one example proving otherwise or kindly STFU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YOur pretense that AA does not discriminate against whites is just you gaslighting to defend racist discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> en.wikipedia.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.
> 
> City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]"
> 
> 
> "Lt. Ben Vargas, the lone Hispanic petitioner, was ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", a "turncoat", and a "token". After speaking with black co-workers in Humphrey's East Restaurant in 2004, he was assaulted from behind in the bathroom, knocked unconscious, and hospitalized. He alleged the attack was orchestrated by a black firefighter in retribution for filing the legal case, but the co-worker in question strongly denied the charge. Vargas quit the Hispanic firefighters' association, whose members include his brother, after the group declined to support his legal case "
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, if only you had a point. Some people apparently got together and sued because their employer promised one thing and then reneged on the deal.  What that has to do with being a "white issue" as opposed to being just like any other case where an employer fails to live up to the terms of a contract they signed sure beats me
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That case(FROM 11 YEARS AGO) has been brought up countless times in this
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> O'Reilly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Court did not throw rule against the theory of Disparate Impact, so all other employers still have to worry about it, as something they will be in danger from.
> 
> And the only defense is to have proportionate numbers of blacks, regardless of qualifications, at each level of the company.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proportionate numbers as in relative population size being reflected
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was clear that he was not referring to the white supremacists organizers, but to those who showed up, just to support historical statues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It was a racist rally, sponsored by racists, coordinated by racists, promoted by racists, and filled with racist speakers.
> 
> There was no one there on the right but racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ⁸
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow! I had not seen all of that before..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not many did. That is the point of lying. TO mislead people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So all of the above flyers were created for the sole purpose of "lying to and misleading people"?
> 
> How so?
> 
> None of those pictured in the flyers were present at the "rally"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two Years Ago, They Marched in Charlottesville. Where Are They Now?
> 
> 
> White supremacists have committed at least 73 murders since Charlottesville, 39 of which were clearly motivated by hateful, racist ideology.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.adl.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nope. The rally was touted as being about Historical statues, to get mainstream regular people there, to try to recruit or co-opt them, or at least give the false illusion that the white supremacist fringe, is not completely insignificant.
> 
> Seriously dude. IF this is the first you have heard about this, you need to be angry with your sources of information. They have been pissing on you, and telling you it is raining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one has been "pissing on me" for several reasons, "dude".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If they have been lying to you, and you let it pass, they have, and will be again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *First of all, I don't live in North Csrolina, so I did not originally have an interest in  following this story that closely. Therefore, when it became national news because of the ", "fine person', running over people with a car, then I read more about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me too. BUT, if you really believe in what you saying, then at this point, you would not be trying to support it, with what you now know is a lie. Choosing to continue to use something you know is false, is showing us both, that on some level, you know your position is bs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thankfully, there are no Confederate statues in my area to protest the removal of. Where I live there is little to no interest in glamorizing the losers from a war fought nearly a century and half ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mine either. I live in the Rust Belt. I am not "thankful" about this though. Why would I be? How would a statue in the park be a problem for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So before you attempt to judge the news sources that I read, possibly you should ask yourself why the ones that you read, appear to paint a completely different picture of what turned out to be a tragic event.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm basing my view on what the President said, based on the actual transcripts. You are the one that is using that quote, to mean something the President EXPLICITLY STATED WAS NOT HIS INTENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also there is a link that I posted that gave an update on some of the, "fine people" who were organizers of the "event". Some of them were far from just being innocuous protestors trying to save some "harmless statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The organizers were White Supremacists. THe President covered that, in the transcript YOU linked to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *If the intent of the rally was to "unite the right. Was its intent soley to save some old statues? Or was there another motive for it? Why didn't they name the rally, ""SAVE THE MONUMENTS"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the white supremacists were trying to co-opt a much more popular issue, to try to gain support, or at least give the illusion of having significant numbers.
> 
> 
> And when the media lied about all of this, the media is in effect, HELPING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS do that.
> 
> When you support that lie, YOU ARE GIVING THE WHITE SUPREMACISTS WHAT THEY SO DESPERATELY WANT AND NEED, ie the illusion of relevance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of the names on the flyers are highly recognizable names of some white supremacist, yet there is not much reported news out there that illustrates the "fine people, who were only there to save their statues"ptotesting some of the organizers who are considered to be extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. The narrative the media pushed, is the one you were told, ie that everyone there on the "right" was a "white supremacist" and the President defended them.
> 
> THe President and I, disagree with that. We believe that a significant portion of the people there to support hte statues, were not there to express support for the White Supremacist Ideology, and should not be lumped in with them.
> 
> It is possible, that we are wrong. It would shocking to me, if it was proven that the white supremacists managed to get such a large turnout.
> 
> 
> Normally, I expect to see, at a white supremacist rally, 5 to 7 people.  I would be impressed if they manage to get to double digits.
> 
> 
> A few hundred? I would literally be shocked. It would seriously make me reevaluate my world view.
> 
> 
> But the point is, the INTENT OF the presidents words, was NOT what the media told you, or how you are using them.
> 
> 
> THey lied to you. They set you up.
> 
> 
> You going to take that, and keep playing along?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is "they"? Are "they" those that who don't report news the way that you would like to hear it?
> 
> How did "they" "set me up"?
> 
> From my POV,  no one "sets me up" for anything that "they" want" me to hear.
> 
> I am in control of what I "hear and believe".
> 
> No one else is.
> 
> Are you attempting to judge what a complete stranger "hears"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. "They" are whoever lied to you, about Trump saying neo-nazis were "fine people".
> 
> 2. And yes, I am judging what you were told. I look at the transcripts and I can see that whoever told you that, was lying to you.
> 
> 3. I mean, seriously. Why are you even talking to me, if you really believe that I and nearly half of the nation, think that "neo nazis " are very fine people? If you really believed that shit, you should be prepping for the war that should be kicking off any second.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again....who are "THEY"? Are "THEY", every major news source out there?
> 
> Are "THEY", the "fake news" sources that the POTUS claims are "out to get him"?
> 
> That would for the most part, include EVERY news source out there.
> 
> Where did I ever imply that "You and HALF the nation think that neo nazis are fine people".
> 
> You obviously have a tendency to exaggerate a position of being a victim.....even when people are making an effort to hear you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The transcripts are clear. Trump explicitly stated that he was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and "THEY" reported it as him talking about hte neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> ANYONE AND EVERYONE who told you that, was lying to you.  THey set up you to look like a liar, because you would say something that was obviously not true.
> 
> 
> "Victim"? Me insisting on easily verifiable facts, is playing the "victim"?
> 
> 
> 
> Here is why I care. We cannot have a nation, if half the people, are going to pretend that the other half are freaking NAZIS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet again you are exaggerating for what purpose?
> 
> 
> Dramatic effect? Or absolute absurdity?
> You obviously achieved both.
> 
> I will read what I read and decide who is lying for myself. There are an abundance of far more reliable sources out there for that, other than your biased personal  opinion.
> 
> 
> We do "have a nation", and it will be here long after Trumps administration is just a footnote in history.
> 
> It is clear that Trump "said what he said, AFTER his INITIAL statement.
> 
> Since you appear to believe that "the media" has a Trump vendetta, what statistical source did  YOU access to arrive at the conclusion that "half of the nation is pretending that  the other half are Nazis"?
> 
> That's a "sky is falling" statement.
> 
> And speaking of "Nazis" that was in fact one of Hitlers tactics.
> 
> Attacking the media.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leading Civil Rights Lawyer Shows 20 Ways Trump Is Copying Hitler’s Early Rhetoric and Policies
> 
> 
> The author, Burt Neuborne, is one of America’s top civil liberties lawyers, and questions whether federal government can contain Trump and GOP power grabs... A new book by one of the nation’s foremost civil liberties lawyers powerfully describes how America’s constitutional checks and balances...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.commondreams.org
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. THe source I used was the full transcripts. Which show that what you were told was a lie.
> 
> 
> 2. We cannot have any civil communication or feelings of unity, if you guys are wiling to accept such obvious and poisonous lies.  And people on my half are getting tired of the insane bullshit coming from your side. It is tearing this country apart.
> 
> 
> 3. Hitler drank water too. Just because Hitler did it, doesn't mean it is bad. The media is the bad guy in this time and place. As I demonstrated.  They deserve to be attacked. A lot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "You guys"? "People in MY half"? "People In YOUR half"?
> 
> His does one even attempt to have any dialogue with someone using that kind of language?
> 
> Civil dialogue is typically a very remote possibility with political zealots.
> 
> Especially when their party loyalty or loyalty to a politician permeates their every word.
> 
> You still have not answered what source did you check that validates that "half of the nation is pretending that the other half are Nazis"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1. I've repeatedly pointed out that my source is the full transcripts.
> 
> 2. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like you are going to just accept such obvious lies about people like me.
> 
> 3. We cannot have a civil discourse if people like me, are pissed off because we keep being held responsible for shit we never did or said, because people like you are believing really obvious lies.
> 
> 4. This shit is tearing this country apart.
> 
> 5. Party loyalty is an issue to communication and unity. It pales in comparison to shit like the lie of "very nice people".
Click to expand...


Seriously?

1. The transcripts of one isolated case is not indicative of an entire country......or even half of it.

2. Name what "lies" about you personally that I've "accepted". I don't know anything about  you personally. Nor do you know me.

3. What am I "holding YOU responsible for"? Nothing to my knowledge.

4. Maybe you believe that YOUR part of the country is "being torn apart". But you don't speak for mine.

5. Trump stated "fine people on both sides"  He didn't use the term "very nice people". As far as party loyalty goes, there is a difference between that and blind loyalty to one side. That's far more divisive than a difference of perception or interpretation of what a self serving politician says about a rally that people had various reasons for attending.
[/QUOTE]



Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.


The media has lied to everyone in the country, and those on your side of the divide believe (or pretend to believe) that the President of the United States said that neo-nazis are "fine people".

That reflects not only on him, but on everyone that supports him.


So many people on your side of the aisle believe that anyone who opposes them has to be stupid or evil.


ON our side, I can tell you, we are increasingly tired of being slammed based on bullshit like that.



As you play along with that lie, and others like it, you are tearing this country apart.
[/QUOTE]

So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? Those who saw some of the characters that were there as being there for other reasons than to save "harmless statues"?

So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?

That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.

As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.

Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid". 

Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"

So you are contributing your share of "tearing the country apart"as well.


That is interesting.

What really should  matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...



As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".





> So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?



Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important. 

IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole. 



> That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.



Who is being dramatic now?




> As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.




If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.  



> Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".



No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy. 

Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.




> Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"




The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names,  or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.



> That is interesting.
> 
> What really should  matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.




When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
> 
> IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is being dramatic now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
> 
> Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names,  or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting.
> 
> What really should  matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
Click to expand...


The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. Nor am I being dramatic. Blind  loyalty to a party or politician is a form dictator worship.  


But free to elaborate on what you wish to.


As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.


It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
> 
> IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is being dramatic now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
> 
> Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names,  or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting.
> 
> What really should  matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
> 
> 
> As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
> 
> 
> It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
Click to expand...



Sure, they can accept or not accept it. 


IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or, 


say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong, 


then I will comment as appropriate.


Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.


----------



## katsteve2012

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
> 
> IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is being dramatic now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
> 
> Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names,  or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting.
> 
> What really should  matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
> 
> 
> As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
> 
> 
> It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can accept or not accept it.
> 
> 
> IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or,
> 
> 
> say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong,
> 
> 
> then I will comment as appropriate.
> 
> 
> Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.
Click to expand...



Lots of "ifs and hypotheticals" there. I'm certain that in the not too distant future some topic will arise that "both sides" as you call them,  will have an opportunity to be measured by their civilty........or lack of.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
> 
> IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is being dramatic now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
> 
> Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names,  or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting.
> 
> What really should  matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
> 
> 
> As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
> 
> 
> It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can accept or not accept it.
> 
> 
> IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or,
> 
> 
> say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong,
> 
> 
> then I will comment as appropriate.
> 
> 
> Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of "ifs and hypotheticals" there. I'm certain that in the not too distant future some topic will arise that "both sides" as you call them,  will have an opportunity to be measured by their civilty........or lack of.
Click to expand...



Have you any complaints about my civility in this thread?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.


Which of these are very fine people...?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these are very fine people...?
Click to expand...



What part of "not the nazis" do you not understand? 


I'm not sure how to dumb this down for you anymore. DO you have a friend who is only half retarded, that could interpret for you?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
Click to expand...

Were they? What percentage were locals? How many outsiders were really moved to travel and stomp around to "support" the non-movement of statues to less in-yer-face locations? Would they have somehow become less "historical" elsewhere?


----------



## katsteve2012

[ QUOTE="Correll, post: 24395314, member: 53993"]


katsteve2012 said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
> 
> IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is being dramatic now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
> 
> Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names,  or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting.
> 
> What really should  matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
> 
> 
> As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
> 
> 
> It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can accept or not accept it.
> 
> 
> IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or,
> 
> 
> say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong,
> 
> 
> then I will comment as appropriate.
> 
> 
> Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of "ifs and hypotheticals" there. I'm certain that in the not too distant future some topic will arise that "both sides" as you call them,  will have an opportunity to be measured by their civilty........or lack of.
Click to expand...



Have you any complaints about my civility in this thread?
[/QUOTE]

Personally? No. But, my expectations in this forum are very low.

As I stated, there will be plenty of opportunities for "both sides" to  determine who is civil and who is not. As usual, I will probably just observe.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these are very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "not the nazis" do you not understand?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how to dumb this down for you anymore. DO you have a friend who is only half retarded, that could interpret for you?
Click to expand...

So the white supremacists were the very fine people? Thanks for clarifying.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Were they? What percentage were locals? How many outsiders were really moved to travel and stomp around to "support" the non-movement of statues to less in-yer-face locations? Would they have somehow become less "historical" elsewhere?
Click to expand...



Very good questions. I have not been able to find any hard numbers on how many pro-statue protestors were there.

I do know that the next years rally, organized by the same people, but now outed as being neo-nazis was vastly smaller, so, I'm thinking the vast majority.


But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them, NOT the neo-nazis,

and anyone that says differently is either lying or a dupe of liars.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Trump was talking about people who support historical statues, but are not neo-nazis.
> 
> 
> 
> Which of these are very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "not the nazis" do you not understand?
> 
> 
> I'm not sure how to dumb this down for you anymore. DO you have a friend who is only half retarded, that could interpret for you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the white supremacists were the very fine people? Thanks for clarifying.
Click to expand...


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> [ QUOTE="Correll, post: 24395314, member: 53993"]
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, who were those on the "other side" that he was referring to? ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I have repeatedly pointed out, from the transcripts, the "not neo-nazis" that were there to support "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So everytime someone makes a statement or expresses a belief that is not "aligned with Trump" or what he claims his agenda to be, that reflects on everyone who supports him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Being soft on nazis, is a pretty big point. IF it were true, and his supporters were fine with it, that would be very important.
> 
> IF it is not true, and people believe it, that would be very harmful to the nation as a whole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the way that people who worship dictators typically think.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is being dramatic now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As far as "my side of the aisle", I do not have any unconditional allegiance to any politician or party and you can't find a post that I've put up that shows that I do. Whoever opposes what I believe in are free to do so.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If you are choosing to support an obvious lie of such vileness, you are choosing sides.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, your hypersensitivity about "The Media" is your personal bogeyman, to the point of you imagining that everyone who does not lean to the extreme right, like you do, "thinks you are evil or stupid".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I've learned that from talking to many liberals, who are pretty clear that they think that there is no valid reason to oppose them on policy.
> 
> Indeed, on this very topic, I can go over their logic, where they go from "Historical statues" to "evil" if you want. As an example.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet on a regular basis you post unflattering diatribes about who you choose to label as "Lefty's"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The difference is that I generally do that, AFTER I make a point, about the issue or what they said, and then I slam them, while they generally call names,  or cry "wacism" as though that is a supporting argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is interesting.
> 
> What really should  matter is what YOU actually think of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> When I am making a point about the health of my society, no, deep divisions and lies tearing us apart, is more relevant than my self image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The country is not being "torn apart" over this old news. But feel free to elaborate on what you wish to.
> 
> 
> As far as you attempting to make a point, and others resorting to name calling over it, maybe you should go back and read some of your own previous posts.
> 
> 
> It is your right to have an opinion, just as acceptance or non acceptance of it is the right of others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, they can accept or not accept it.
> 
> 
> IF they refuse to accept it for a stupid or self serving reason, or just because "wacism", or,
> 
> 
> say they just refuse to admit the truth, even when shown the full original transcripts that clearly show that they are wrong,
> 
> 
> then I will comment as appropriate.
> 
> 
> Probably based more on how they behaved, than actual disagreement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Lots of "ifs and hypotheticals" there. I'm certain that in the not too distant future some topic will arise that "both sides" as you call them,  will have an opportunity to be measured by their civilty........or lack of.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have you any complaints about my civility in this thread?
Click to expand...


Personally? No. But, my expectations in this forum are very low.

As I stated, there will be plenty of opportunities for "both sides" to  determine who is civil and who is not. As usual, I will probably just observe.
[/QUOTE]


You were civil to me, despite disagreeing strongly, and I was civil back.


People who choose to be  assholes, I am an asshole to them BACK.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,


The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless, he was alluding to "them."


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
Click to expand...



He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.

Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant. 


Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.


This should be shockingly good news to any lib...


If they actually believe the shit they say,


but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
Click to expand...

LOL

That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
Click to expand...

Then according to the transcript what? He watched both sides carefully, right? Then your man is a clown at best.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
Click to expand...



So, why do you libs lie about that so much then? 


I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.

I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis, 


but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,


and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then according to the transcript what? He watched both sides carefully, right? Then your man is a clown at best.
Click to expand...



I dont' know if he got information that a significant number of the attendees were not neo-nazis or if he just guessed it.


For discussion purposes, I'm willing to go with the worst case scenario, he just guessed.


Ok, so what? That still does not justify lying about what he said.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
Click to expand...

Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.

His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
Click to expand...



He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people. 

You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me. 

THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue. 


I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said. 


They choose to lie instead.


Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis


_Hmm, are anti-fascists the moral equivalent of fascists?.. Hmm.. There are so many great people on both sides.. great people.._


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
Click to expand...

He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.

Impeached Trump's comments embolden the racists.


----------



## Grumblenuts

..dead people.. living people.. all so very fine!..


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> _Hmm, are anti-fascists the moral equivalent of fascists?.. Hmm.. There are so many great people on both sides.. great people.._
Click to expand...


You take everything everyone says about themselves at face value regardless of the evidence of their actions?

Let me try.


Grumble. I am not racist. 


Now, what is your response?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
Click to expand...



So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?

TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.


Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.


YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same. 


When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case. 


YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> ..dead people.. living people.. all so very fine!..




He explicitly condemned the murderer and the violence. 


If you are so certain of your position, why are you constantly lying?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
Click to expand...

I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumble. I am not racist.
> 
> Now, what is your response?


Correll, I am Martian..  and couldn't care less how you respond to that.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> _Hmm, are anti-fascists the moral equivalent of fascists?.. Hmm.. There are so many great people on both sides.. great people.._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You take everything everyone says about themselves at face value regardless of the evidence of their actions?
Click to expand...

Evidence? Who died? Who killed them?


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
Click to expand...



You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".

Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> Grumble. I am not racist.
> 
> Now, what is your response?
> 
> 
> 
> Correll, I am Martian..  and couldn't care less how you respond to that.
Click to expand...



Got it. so you understand the concept of not just believing what people say about themselves.


So, why you just accept that "anti-fascist" is all there is to know about Antifa?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis
> 
> 
> 
> _Hmm, are anti-fascists the moral equivalent of fascists?.. Hmm.. There are so many great people on both sides.. great people.._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You take everything everyone says about themselves at face value regardless of the evidence of their actions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evidence? Who died? Who killed them?
Click to expand...



THe evidence of their actions. Evidence does not imply murder. Put the crack pipe down.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
Click to expand...

LOLOL

The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
Click to expand...



The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
Click to expand...

One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
Click to expand...


1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?

2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
Click to expand...

Because the right was comprised of racists.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
Click to expand...










						PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
					

On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr




					www.politifact.com
				





> It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
Click to expand...


Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?

Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?


It is that, isn't it?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
> 
> 
> On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



From your link


"And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "


He explicitly stated that he was not talking about the neo-nazis or white nationalists.

Anyone that says otherwise, is a filthy liar.


----------



## Grumblenuts




----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
> 
> 
> On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From your link
> 
> 
> "And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not talking about the neo-nazis or white nationalists.
> 
> Anyone that says otherwise, is a filthy liar.
Click to expand...

Impeached Trump was correct, there were others there besides neonazis and white nationalists. There were also KKK, white supremacists, and other assorted racists; all gathering for a Unite the Right rally.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
Click to expand...



So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?

LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PolitiFact - In Context: Donald Trump’s ‘very fine people on both sides’ remarks (transcript)
> 
> 
> On Aug. 15, 2017, President Donald Trump held a press conference to discuss an executive order he had signed on infrastr
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.politifact.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was at this press conference that Trump said that "you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From your link
> 
> 
> "And you had people -- and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists -- because they should be condemned totally. But you had many people in that group other than neo-Nazis and white nationalists. Okay? And the press has treated them absolutely unfairly. "
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not talking about the neo-nazis or white nationalists.
> 
> Anyone that says otherwise, is a filthy liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Impeached Trump was correct, there were others there besides neonazis and white nationalists. There were also KKK, white supremacists, and other assorted racists; all gathering for a Unite the Right rally.
Click to expand...



He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".

What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
Click to expand...




From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?


LOL

It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".


Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. all very fine racists.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."
Click to expand...



It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.
Click to expand...



So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?
Click to expand...

All of them.. "very fine" ones!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them.. "very fine" ones!
Click to expand...




Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Why else would they bother travelling to a place where the locals clearly wanted those racist symbols gone from their hood.


Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them.. "very fine" ones!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?
Click to expand...

You seem to believe I should care. Why?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
Click to expand...

Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?

Which of these were very fine people...?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.
Click to expand...

No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Why else would they bother travelling to a place where the locals clearly wanted those racist symbols gone from their hood.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them.. "very fine" ones!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe I should care. Why?
Click to expand...




It seems a simple question. That you are afraid to answer. For obvious reasons.


Trump and I disagree with you. We believe there there were non racists at the rally but who support historical statues.


YOu disagree. Which would be a fine debate to have.


But instead  you insist on pretending that what he said about the people he believes were there, you are pretending he said it about people he explicitly said he was NOT saying it about.


That is you, being a liar. 


And that you can't answer a question like, "do you understand that other people might disagree with you".


is you knowing that you are full of shit.


You are full of shit, and you know it.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
Click to expand...



That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now? 

TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why else would they bother travelling to a place where the locals clearly wanted those racist symbols gone from their hood.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them.. "very fine" ones!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe I should care. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems a simple question. That you are afraid to answer. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> Trump and I disagree with you. We believe there there were non racists at the rally but who support historical statues.
> 
> 
> YOu disagree. Which would be a fine debate to have.
> 
> 
> But instead  you insist on pretending that what he said about the people he believes were there, you are pretending he said it about people he explicitly said he was NOT saying it about.
> 
> 
> That is you, being a liar.
> 
> 
> And that you can't answer a question like, "do you understand that other people might disagree with you".
> 
> 
> is you knowing that you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> You are full of shit, and you know it.
Click to expand...

^^^^^^^^


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.
Click to expand...



You are being evasive and conflating different groups so you can lie about what the President said.


The fact that you have to hold on to such a transparent lie, shows that on some level, you know that your entire world view and ideology is shit.

Because otherwise, you would let this one go, and focus on the much better arguments for your world view and positions.


BUt,  you know, there are no better arguments.



All your points are bullshit.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why else would they bother travelling to a place where the locals clearly wanted those racist symbols gone from their hood.
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> 
> 
> Of slave state war heroes.. i.e. very fine racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, your point is that anyone who supports those historical statues must by definition be racist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All of them.. "very fine" ones!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you understand that other people might not agree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem to believe I should care. Why?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It seems a simple question. That you are afraid to answer. For obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> Trump and I disagree with you. We believe there there were non racists at the rally but who support historical statues.
> 
> 
> YOu disagree. Which would be a fine debate to have.
> 
> 
> But instead  you insist on pretending that what he said about the people he believes were there, you are pretending he said it about people he explicitly said he was NOT saying it about.
> 
> 
> That is you, being a liar.
> 
> 
> And that you can't answer a question like, "do you understand that other people might disagree with you".
> 
> 
> is you knowing that you are full of shit.
> 
> 
> You are full of shit, and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^^^^^^
Click to expand...



Said the pussy that couldn't answer


"do you understand that other people might disagree with you"?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Faun said:


> No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.


All he's got.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
Click to expand...



But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?


Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.
> 
> 
> 
> All he's got.
Click to expand...



Said the pussy that was afraid to answer the question, 

"do you understand that other people might disagree with you"?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are being evasive and conflating different groups so you can lie about what the President said.
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to hold on to such a transparent lie, shows that on some level, you know that your entire world view and ideology is shit.
> 
> Because otherwise, you would let this one go, and focus on the much better arguments for your world view and positions.
> 
> 
> BUt,  you know, there are no better arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> All your points are bullshit.
Click to expand...

Fuck you, racist.

I am conflating nothing. Racists held a rally and at first, Impeached Trump equated the racists with the counter-racists. After that stupidity blew up in has face, he said there were "very fine people" on the right. But the right was a conglomeration of racists.

So which of them were not racist...? You never answered...


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.


----------



## Grumblenuts

OMG, people might disagree with Correll?
Shocking!


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are being evasive and conflating different groups so you can lie about what the President said.
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to hold on to such a transparent lie, shows that on some level, you know that your entire world view and ideology is shit.
> 
> Because otherwise, you would let this one go, and focus on the much better arguments for your world view and positions.
> 
> 
> BUt,  you know, there are no better arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> All your points are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you, racist.
> 
> I am conflating nothing. Racists held a rally and at first, Impeached Trump equated the racists with the counter-racists. After that stupidity blew up in has face, he said there were "very fine people" on the right. But the right was a conglomeration of racists.
> 
> So which of them were not racist...? You never answered...
Click to expand...




1. Racists did hold a rally. I've discussed that. No one says that did not happen. So why you harping on it?

2. The antifa goons were just as responsible for the riot as neo-nazis, if not more so. WHy should that be ignored?

3. Some of the people on the right were "very fine people". NOt everyone who supports historical statues is a neo-nazis or white nationalists.  And it is vile of you to pretend otherwise.

4. I do not know which of them were not racist. I assume some, if not most of them,were not racist.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
Click to expand...



He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.

And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now. 


The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> OMG, people might disagree with Correll?
> Shocking!




Yet, when I asked you that in context of the topic, you were too much of a pussy to answer. 


Because your position is a giant lie, and you know it.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are being evasive and conflating different groups so you can lie about what the President said.
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to hold on to such a transparent lie, shows that on some level, you know that your entire world view and ideology is shit.
> 
> Because otherwise, you would let this one go, and focus on the much better arguments for your world view and positions.
> 
> 
> BUt,  you know, there are no better arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> All your points are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you, racist.
> 
> I am conflating nothing. Racists held a rally and at first, Impeached Trump equated the racists with the counter-racists. After that stupidity blew up in has face, he said there were "very fine people" on the right. But the right was a conglomeration of racists.
> 
> So which of them were not racist...? You never answered...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Racists did hold a rally. I've discussed that. No one says that did not happen. So why you harping on it?
> 
> 2. The antifa goons were just as responsible for the riot as neo-nazis, if not more so. WHy should that be ignored?
> 
> 3. Some of the people on the right were "very fine people". NOt everyone who supports historical statues is a neo-nazis or white nationalists.  And it is vile of you to pretend otherwise.
> 
> 4. I do not know which of them were not racist. I assume some, if not most of them,were not racist.
Click to expand...

*"Some of the people on the right were "very fine people". NOt everyone who supports historical statues is a neo-nazis or white nationalists. And it is vile of you to pretend otherwise."*

Great, show them...


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
Click to expand...

So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Well it's been real.. It's been fun.. But I've got important, very fine things to do.. Very fine.. Like supporting some statues.. Hmm,.. let's see.. May need a shovel? Rocks? A sledge? Rope? A tree or two?..


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated that he was not referring to those people. He was referring to "fine people" who went there because the rally was about "historical statues".
> 
> What does it say about you, that you are so comfortable lying like this?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> It was the racists of the Unite the Right rally who went there to rally about "historical statues."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not racist to support historical statues. YOu are just being a troll now, because you accidentally admitted that most libs lie about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one said it's racist to support historical statues. Your strawman is easily defeated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are being evasive and conflating different groups so you can lie about what the President said.
> 
> 
> The fact that you have to hold on to such a transparent lie, shows that on some level, you know that your entire world view and ideology is shit.
> 
> Because otherwise, you would let this one go, and focus on the much better arguments for your world view and positions.
> 
> 
> BUt,  you know, there are no better arguments.
> 
> 
> 
> All your points are bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck you, racist.
> 
> I am conflating nothing. Racists held a rally and at first, Impeached Trump equated the racists with the counter-racists. After that stupidity blew up in has face, he said there were "very fine people" on the right. But the right was a conglomeration of racists.
> 
> So which of them were not racist...? You never answered...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Racists did hold a rally. I've discussed that. No one says that did not happen. So why you harping on it?
> 
> 2. The antifa goons were just as responsible for the riot as neo-nazis, if not more so. WHy should that be ignored?
> 
> 3. Some of the people on the right were "very fine people". NOt everyone who supports historical statues is a neo-nazis or white nationalists.  And it is vile of you to pretend otherwise.
> 
> 4. I do not know which of them were not racist. I assume some, if not most of them,were not racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"Some of the people on the right were "very fine people". NOt everyone who supports historical statues is a neo-nazis or white nationalists. And it is vile of you to pretend otherwise."*
> 
> Great, show them...
Click to expand...



I don't know them individually. I just assume that some of them were there.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
Click to expand...



NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.


That is the relevant portion for this discussion.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Well it's been real.. It's been fun.. But I've got important, very fine things to do.. Very fine.. Like supporting some statues.. Hmm,.. let's see.. May need a shovel? Rocks? A sledge? Rope? A tree or two?..




you do know that there was a move to remove the statues right?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> I just assume that some of them were there.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
Click to expand...

Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."

How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just assume that some of them were there.
Click to expand...



I thought I was clear about that. Are you seriously asking me for names of random individuals that went there?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Were you aware that on this date in history Correll was voted most apt to be fucked with permanently by his high school class mates? 

Hell, I presumed he'd never made it that far!


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
Click to expand...



NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.

I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.

Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Were you aware that on this date in history Correll was voted most apt to be fucked with permanently by his high school class mates?
> 
> Hell, I presumed he'd never made it that far!




Said the man that was too much of a pussy to answer the question" are you aware some people might disagree with you on that"?


----------



## Grumblenuts

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^




YOu will never find me, afraid to answer a question like,


"are you aware some people might disagree with you?"


YOu were the one afraid to answer that. pussy.


Because, you know, that your entire world view and ideology, is nothing but shit and lies and you are terrified of the truth.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
Click to expand...

I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.

So, no, no lie.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.
> 
> So, no, no lie.
Click to expand...



It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. 

Anyone that would claim it is, is a liar. 

YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest.


Because, you can't give up the lie. You have to fight against the Truth, all the time.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Just as he meant when speaking of all the very fine immigrants from those "shithole countries." 
Trump is all peaches and cream.. in Lalaland.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.
> 
> So, no, no lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues.
> 
> Anyone that would claim it is, is a liar.
> 
> YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest.
> 
> 
> Because, you can't give up the lie. You have to fight against the Truth, all the time.
Click to expand...

*"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*

^^^ Another strawman offered and dismissed.

*"YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest."*

So which ones were the "fine" ones? Was it the skin heads or the proud boys or some other racist group?


----------



## katsteve2012

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
Click to expand...



The following is an   excerpt from the transcript:

*Reporter*: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"

*Trump*: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."

*Reporter*: "*Forty-eight hours."

Trump*: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement."


I suppose that he deserves to be absolved of any criticism because he "eventually" circled back and issued his follow up statement.


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.
> 
> So, no, no lie.
Click to expand...


He was talking about all the white nationalists who were there.


----------



## IM2

> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*



Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
Click to expand...

And that's what the statues stood for. If they didn't, no one would give a shit about them being moved to some place less objectionable to those who lived there.


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.
> 
> So, no, no lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was talking about all the white nationalists who were there.
Click to expand...

Yeah, "white nationalists" well covers the field in a sense. Otoh, the confederacy was clearly anti-nationalist, separationist, a bunch of traitors, because slavery.. so there's that. Racists √
Anyways, seems a great time to note that up there somewhere, Correll tellingly says:


> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?


Classic..


> *Whataboutism*, also known as *whataboutery*, is a variant of the _tu quoque_ logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3] It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9] As Garry Kasparov noted, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion *by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.**[*10] It has been adopted by other politicians and countries.


Russian propagandist is as Russian propagandist does.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Just as he meant when speaking of all the very fine immigrants from those "shithole countries."
> Trump is all peaches and cream.. in Lalaland.




Correct. Being honest is a good thing.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.
> 
> So, no, no lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues.
> 
> Anyone that would claim it is, is a liar.
> 
> YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest.
> 
> 
> Because, you can't give up the lie. You have to fight against the Truth, all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> ^^^ Another strawman offered and dismissed.
> 
> *"YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest."*
> 
> So which ones were the "fine" ones? Was it the skin heads or the proud boys or some other racist group?
Click to expand...




Dude. YOu are an ass.


The crux of the matter is that you are assuming and insisting not only that everyone there, on the pro-statue side, was some type of racist, 

but that Trump and I believe that too, so that when we say "very fine people" we must be talking about YOUR VERSION of the "people".


That is you being an ass, and you pretending to not understand that, is you being a liar.


----------



## Correll

katsteve2012 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The following is an   excerpt from the transcript:
> 
> *Reporter*: "Let me ask you, Mr. President, why did you wait so long to blast neo-Nazis?"
> 
> *Trump*: "I didn’t wait long. I didn’t wait long."
> 
> *Reporter*: "*Forty-eight hours."
> 
> Trump*: "I wanted to make sure, unlike most politicians, that what I said was correct -- not make a quick statement. The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement. But you don’t make statements that direct unless you know the facts. It takes a little while to get the facts. You still don’t know the facts. And it’s a very, very important process to me, and it’s a very important statement."
> 
> 
> I suppose that he deserves to be absolved of any criticism because he "eventually" circled back and issued his follow up statement.
Click to expand...



Thank you.  That would be very reasonable.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.
> 
> So, no, no lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was talking about all the white nationalists who were there.
Click to expand...




He explicitly stated that he was not.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Trump: When the President Says It, That Means It’s True
					

The commander in chief embraces a peculiar worldview in which bogus claims are retroactively justified and evidence simply conjured into existence.




					www.theatlantic.com


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that's what the statues stood for. If they didn't, no one would give a shit about them being moved to some place less objectionable to those who lived there.
Click to expand...



That is what you believe they stand for. THat is not what their supporters believe they stand for.


That is why you were afraid to answer the question, "do you understand that some people might disagree with you".


Because you know that it is not reasonable for you to call people racists, for supporting a statue they believe stands for regional pride.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
Click to expand...



And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
Click to expand...

You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.
> 
> So, no, no lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was talking about all the white nationalists who were there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, "white nationalists" well covers the field in a sense. Otoh, the confederacy was clearly anti-nationalist, separationist, a bunch of traitors, because slavery.. so there's that. Racists √
> Anyways, seems a great time to note that up there somewhere, Correll tellingly says:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Classic..
> 
> 
> 
> *Whataboutism*, also known as *whataboutery*, is a variant of the _tu quoque_ logical fallacy that attempts to discredit an opponent's position by charging them with hypocrisy without directly refuting or disproving their argument.[1][2][3] It is particularly associated with Soviet and Russian propaganda.[4][5][6] When criticisms were leveled at the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the Soviet response would often be "What about..." followed by an event in the Western world.[7][8][9] As Garry Kasparov noted, it is a word that was coined to describe the frequent use of a rhetorical diversion *by Soviet apologists and dictators, who would counter charges of their oppression, "massacres, gulags, and forced deportations" by invoking American slavery, racism, lynchings, etc.**[*10] It has been adopted by other politicians and countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Russian propagandist is as Russian propagandist does.
Click to expand...




I did not bring it up. You (or faun) asked about a question/answer from the press conference. It was a reporter who wanted to assume the white supremacists were the sole cause of the violence when that was not true.

This is not "what about ism".  I am not trying to distract from some point.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Trump: When the President Says It, That Means It’s True
> 
> 
> The commander in chief embraces a peculiar worldview in which bogus claims are retroactively justified and evidence simply conjured into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com




Says the man that was afraid to answer the question"do you understand that some people disagree with you?"


----------



## Jitss617

How old was obama when he saw a black man? Walking in on his mom? Or in high school?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
Click to expand...



I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together. 


YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political  zealot.


----------



## Grumblenuts

For denial, see:


Correll said:


> This is not "what about ism". I am not trying to distract from some point.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> the question"do you understand that some people disagree with you?"


Not a question. Thus snarky response (also not a question):


Grumblenuts said:


> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political  zealot.
Click to expand...

You talking about flags or statues? Make up your mind.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
Click to expand...


We as a nation didn't rebrand shit. They were put up long after the war was over to denote white supremacy, and that version of the flag was also reborn to stand for white supremacy. Because it is not the original confederate flag. We have not been fine with that. Corrells imagination is running wild. Another bout of psychosis.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> For denial, see:
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is not "what about ism". I am not trying to distract from some point.
Click to expand...



And I explained why.  At length. THe point you claimed was "what about ism" was in response to a point one of you guys brought up. A on topic response, not a deflection.


You cut all of that, and now pretend that my response was not valid?


That was dishonest and cowardly of you. 


Seriously, how can you take such a step and not realize that doing so, means that your position in the debate is completely wrong?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the question"do you understand that some people disagree with you?"
> 
> 
> 
> Not a question. Thus snarky response (also not a question):
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Actually, the crux of this matter, is that you and faun are insisting on judging Trump's words, as though he shares your view of the protesters.


You are literally ignoring his explicitly stated words, about the people in question, and instead judging him as though he thinks the same as you.


So that you can completely reverse his meaning.  And then attack him and his supporters on that basis.


In that context, asking you if you understand that other people can disagree with you, is not snark. 



It is the crux of the matter.


And I know, that instead of addressing this, you will cut it down to nothing and dodge it, like the cuck that you are.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political  zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking about flags or statues? Make up your mind.
Click to expand...



Symbols of regional pride.  That is what they both are now, so the point is valid. As you know. So, why you pretending not to?

Oh, right. YOu know that your position is false, so games like that are your only hope of even pretending to "score a point".


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We as a nation didn't rebrand shit. They were put up long after the war was over to denote white supremacy, and that version of the flag was also reborn to stand for white supremacy. Because it is not the original confederate flag. We have not been fine with that. Corrells imagination is running wild. Another bout of psychosis.
Click to expand...


1. We rebranded it all, as I have repeatedly documented. YOur denial is delusional.

2. They were put up later in the lives of the children of the veterans. THat makes complete sense. Do you really need me to explain why? LOL!!!

3. That flag was the Battle Flag of the Main Confederate Army. imo, that demonstrates the rebranding, as they changed focus from the political flag of the Confederacy, to one that was more associated with the soldiers and not the actual policies. 

4. We, as a nation, have been fine with it. And still are. It is just you lefties that are pretending to be upset, to give you something to cry "Evul Wacism" over.


----------



## Grumblenuts

^^^


> We, as a nation, have been fine with it.


Said the one too uncomfortable in his own skin to speak for himself.


> In argumentation theory, an *argumentum ad populum* (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".[_citation needed_]
> 
> Other names for the fallacy include appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument by consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,_{...}_


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts.

This is bob.







I've heard that Bob is a really nice guy. That he does all this very fine stuff. (INSERT VERY FINE STUFF HERE).

So, I make the comment some day, that Bob is a "very fine guy".

Are you following me?


Now, you heard different. YOU heard that Bob, is a MASS MURDERER.


So, do you, 

a. Tell me I am mistaken about Bob, that he is not fine, he is a mass murderer.


or 



b. attack me for supporting mass murder?




This is why I asked you, if you understand that other people can disagree with you. Because your behavior is demonstrating that you do not.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Do you fail to understand that we leftists are a big part of "this nation" because you're dense, a determined asshole, or both?


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> ^^^
> Said the one too uncomfortable in his own skin to speak for himself.
> 
> 
> 
> In argumentation theory, an *argumentum ad populum* (Latin for "appeal to the people"[1]) is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so".[_citation needed_]
> 
> Other names for the fallacy include appeal to (common) belief,[2][3] appeal to the majority,[4] appeal to the masses,[5] appeal to popularity,[6][7] argument by consensus,[8] authority of the many,[8][9] bandwagon fallacy,_{...}_
Click to expand...




Yeah, I'm fine in my skin. Thanks for asking. 


The point has been raised as to what the symbols represent.  And you are judging people, based on their support of those symbols.


Discussing what the symbols mean to people, in that context, is not " *argumentum ad populum"*

Indeed, it is the crux of the matter.


You are interpreting any support of the symbols as proof of racism.


my point is that that is not true. 


Would you like to address my point?


LOL!!! That was just a little joke. I know that is not how you roll.



Instead, you will cut away the part where I make the argument you cannot refute, and then address my point, or some made up strawman, and focus primarily on your use of the Logical Fallacy of Proof by Assertion.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Do you fail to understand that we leftists are a big part of "this nation" because you're dense, a determined asshole, or both?




I totally understand that you lefties are part of this nation.  Nothing I have said, suggests otherwise.


And as a whole, this country did the rebranded and moved on, until just recently, when you people decided to start fucking with the Southern Whites.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Russian bot. Gotta be. No one is this stupid.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Russian bot. Gotta be. No one is this stupid.




Said the man that is running from my points. This time you didn't even cut them down to nothing and then strawman me.


If I'm "stupid" what does it mean that I have completely kicked your ass?


----------



## Grumblenuts

That you're deranged.. obviously.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> That you're deranged.. obviously.




Grumblenuts.

This is bob.









I've heard that Bob is a really nice guy. That he does all this very fine stuff. (INSERT VERY FINE STUFF HERE).

So, I make the comment some day, that Bob is a "very fine guy".

Are you following me?


Now, you heard different. YOU heard that Bob, is a MASS MURDERER.


So, do you,

a. Tell me I am mistaken about Bob, that he is not fine, he is a mass murderer.


or



b. attack me for supporting mass murder?




This is why I asked you, if you understand that other people can disagree with you. Because your behavior is demonstrating that you do not.


----------



## Grumblenuts

You're being too pathetic to even rate as funny any more.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> You're being too pathetic to even rate as funny any more.




Your pretense that you don't get my point, to that extent that you cannot even intelligently express disagreement is not credible.


You are obviously stonewalling because you do not have the honesty in you to admit that what you are doing is wrong.


WHich is very sad, because admitting this, costs you ONE EXCUSE to cry "evul wacism".


It does not cost you any other of your many excuses, nor require you to change position on even one policy.



BUT, you still cannot do it.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the question"do you understand that some people disagree with you?"
> 
> 
> 
> Not a question. Thus snarky response (also not a question):
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the crux of this matter, is that you and faun are insisting on judging Trump's words, as though he shares your view of the protesters.
Click to expand...

Actually, this is just one more tiresome strawman where you insultingly presume to speak for others rather than being content to address our actual words, speaking only for yourself..


> You are literally ignoring his explicitly stated words, about the people in question, and instead judging him as though he thinks the same as you.


..You are literally arguing only with yourself here,.. making shit up..  _blah, blah,_ fucking _blah_..








						Definition of PUSILLANIMITY
					

the quality or state of being pusillanimous : cowardliness… See the full definition




					www.merriam-webster.com


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> the question"do you understand that some people disagree with you?"
> 
> 
> 
> Not a question. Thus snarky response (also not a question):
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the crux of this matter, is that you and faun are insisting on judging Trump's words, as though he shares your view of the protesters.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, this is just one more tiresome strawman where you insultingly presume to speak for others rather than being content to address our actual words, speaking only for yourself..
> 
> 
> 
> You are literally ignoring his explicitly stated words, about the people in question, and instead judging him as though he thinks the same as you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ..You are literally arguing only with yourself here,.. making shit up..  _blah, blah,_ fucking _blah_..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of PUSILLANIMITY
> 
> 
> the quality or state of being pusillanimous : cowardliness… See the full definition
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.merriam-webster.com
Click to expand...



You strongly state that my take on your thinking is incorrect. 


Yet you offer no alternative explanation for your actions. 


AND, it is worth noting, my understanding of your behavior, fits your actions and faun's perfectly.


Your flat denial, is not credible.


----------



## Grumblenuts

So you agree with yourself. Amazing. I had a dog once.. It died.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Trump: When the President Says It, That Means It’s True
> 
> 
> The commander in chief embraces a peculiar worldview in which bogus claims are retroactively justified and evidence simply conjured into existence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theatlantic.com



Whoever wrote that article was related to Nostradamus.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> Russian bot. Gotta be. No one is this stupid.



Oh but  there is and you see  them all on display here at USMB.


----------



## Grumblenuts

IM2 said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russian bot. Gotta be. No one is this stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but  there is and you see  them all on display here at USMB.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's pretty dismal. Here and every Americentric, American hosted MB I've tried, unfortunately. This one's actually slightly better than most. May have to go back to a European one soon..


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> So you agree with yourself. Amazing. I had a dog once.. It died.




Your dishonesty is because you know that being honest, means admitting you are wrong.


----------



## IM2

Grumblenuts said:


> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> Russian bot. Gotta be. No one is this stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh but  there is and you see  them all on display here at USMB.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it's pretty dismal. Here and every Americentric, American hosted MB I've tried, unfortunately. This one's actually slightly better than most. May have to go back to a European one soon..
Click to expand...

Yes it does seem that most of these boards here in America have the same types as members.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> But regardless, of how many there were or not there, he was talking about them,
> 
> 
> 
> The other side, half, most? Whatever,.. regardless he was alluding to "them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He explicitly stated he was referring to the people that were "not nazis", and the media reported that he said the exact opposite.
> 
> Exactly how many of those people there were, is kind of irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hell, if he was wrong, and incredibly, there were nothing but white supremacists and neo-nazis there, he still was not referring to them, but to people he mistaken thought were there.
> 
> 
> This should be shockingly good news to any lib...
> 
> 
> If they actually believe the shit they say,
> 
> 
> but ever lib I have ever talked to about it, gets mad.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> That's what Impeached Trump said at a later date when damage control was needed to fix his initial statement which didn't call out any of the racists on the right. Instead, he equated the racists with those who were there to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, why do you libs lie about that so much then?
> 
> 
> I mean, it is one thing to claim it was just "damage control". It is a very different thing to lie about what he said.
> 
> I'd be happy to discuss his initial statement and what you call "damage control" and whether or not Antifa is equal with neo-nazis,
> 
> 
> but first, why do you think that the lib media, instead of attacking him for using "damage control" just choose to lie instead,
> 
> 
> and what does it say about liberals, that they pretend to believe the lie, even when shown the transcripts?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because he said what he said. He literally equated the racists with the anti-racists as though they're morally equivalent. When called out on it, he came out to make a second statement to correct his first. He bungled that one too and then came out to make a third statement to correct his second. Then he bungled that one too.
> 
> His shifting positions emboldened the racists who were at the rally who tweeted about Impeached Trump's support for them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He did not say that neo-nazis were fine people.
> 
> You are the first liberal that has admitted that to me.
> 
> THAT is the point to be discussed on this issue.
> 
> 
> I wish that the point of discussion was wether antifa is the moral equivalent of neo-nazis, but that is not what every other libs claims he said.
> 
> 
> They choose to lie instead.
> 
> 
> Kudos to you for your honesty, btw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He said there were very fine people on both sides -- but one side was a racist rally. The other side was to counter the racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, to be clear, you are walking back your earlier admission?
> 
> TO be expected. Sad, but, whatever.
> 
> 
> Unite the Right rally.  Because the organizers worked hard to get a host of different factions there in hopes of "uniting" them. under their banner. Obviously.
> 
> 
> YOu are now pretending that everyone that showed up was the same.
> 
> 
> When we have been discussing for quite some time, that that is not the case.
> 
> 
> YOur partisan spin, is dismissed as an desperate attempt to distract from your dishonest tactics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I walked back nothing as my position has never wavered.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You admitted that he did not call the nazis "very fine people" though you claimed that his condemnation was "damage control".
> 
> Any of this sounding familiar or has it been too long for your lib brain to remember?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The word "nazi" isn't even in that post of mine. As always, you're hallucinating again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The transcript is clear. Anyone that claims that he said neo-nazis are "very fine people" is lying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One day 1, he equated the racists with the counter-racists, one of whom was killed by a racist. I believe it was on day 3 he came right out and said there were very fine people on the right. And that was the group of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Some of the counter protesters were violent thugs. Why would you want that to be ignored?
> 
> 2. He explicitly stated that he was not referring to the white supremacists when he made that comment. Why are you lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because the right was comprised of racists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you keep saying "racist" when the normal claim is that he said it of "neo nazis"?
> 
> Is it because you know it is a lie, and you are trying to avoid admitting it by playing some "conflating" game?
> 
> 
> It is that, isn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, it's because there were multiple facets of racists, including neonazis, who congregated for their Unite the Right rally. I didn't want to hurt any racist's feelings by exclude them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> So, do you admit that he explicitly was NOT talking about the neo-nazis and white nationalists when he said it?
> 
> LIke it shows in the transcripts. Clearly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> It was a rally of racists. Whomever he spoke of on the right was a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From his words, he believed otherwise. I agree with him. Why are you ignoring what we say, and judging us based on your beliefs?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, so which one of the people at that rally were not racist...?
> 
> Which of these were very fine people...?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That was the night before. YOu don't understand the difference between night and day now?
> 
> TDS really does make you people retarded, doesn't it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck. it was all part of the Unite the Right racist rally.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> But Trump was clear, he was not referring to any of those "neo nazis or white natinalists", so why are you acting  like you don't know that?
> 
> 
> Oh, because you have to support the lie. Because on some level, you know that everything you believe is shit based on lies and hate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Yeah, Impeached Trump was so clear, he'd eventually make like 3 or 4 statements to clarify earlier ones.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He was clear he was not referring to "neo nazis or white nationalists". AS YOU KNOW.
> 
> And the media lied about that. As you are doing right now.
> 
> 
> The furor their lies ginned up, led to more statements. That is not a reflection on Trump, but on the media whores.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So Proud Boys, that's who he meant then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS.
> 
> 
> That is the relevant portion for this discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Great, sounds like we agree Proud Boys are among those Impeached Trump thinks of as "very fine people."
> 
> How about Skin Heads? Also "very fine people?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> NOT NEO-NAZIS OR WHITE NATIONALISTS,  that is the part of the transcripts that are relevant to this discussion.
> 
> I'm not sure why you want to discuss a list of people that might fall into that category. Really a lot easier to say, not those very few people.
> 
> Oh, right, you're still trying to lie about what he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm talking about racists who don't necessarily fit into neatly into a neonazis or white nationalist package.
> 
> So, no, no lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues.
> 
> Anyone that would claim it is, is a liar.
> 
> YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest.
> 
> 
> Because, you can't give up the lie. You have to fight against the Truth, all the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> ^^^ Another strawman offered and dismissed.
> 
> *"YOur refusal to admit that Trump was speaking of "fine people" when he spoke of "fine people" is you being dishonest."*
> 
> So which ones were the "fine" ones? Was it the skin heads or the proud boys or some other racist group?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude. YOu are an ass.
> 
> 
> The crux of the matter is that you are assuming and insisting not only that everyone there, on the pro-statue side, was some type of racist,
> 
> but that Trump and I believe that too, so that when we say "very fine people" we must be talking about YOUR VERSION of the "people".
> 
> 
> That is you being an ass, and you pretending to not understand that, is you being a liar.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you when you say Impeached Trump didn't mean "my version of the people."

It was a racist rally. It was sponsored by racists. It was promoted by racists. All of the named guests were racists. The purpose of the rally was to unite different factions of racists. There was no one there on the right but racists. There were no "very fine people" there. Racists are not "very fine people."


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> ...
> I don't believe you when you say Impeached Trump didn't mean "my version of the people."
> 
> It was a racist rally. It was sponsored by racists. It was promoted by racists. All of the named guests were racists. The purpose of the rally was to unite different factions of racists. There was no one there on the right but racists. There were no "very fine people" there. Racists are not "very fine people."




I disagree. In my opinion, and obviously in Trump's, there were a significant portion of the protesters who were lured there under false pretenses by the rally organizers, and who did not share the racist views of the rally organizers.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political  zealot.
Click to expand...

So? Why didn't you post these pictures of the Confederate flag...?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political  zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking about flags or statues? Make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Symbols of regional pride.  That is what they both are now, so the point is valid. As you know. So, why you pretending not to?
> 
> Oh, right. YOu know that your position is false, so games like that are your only hope of even pretending to "score a point".
Click to expand...

So if nazi's wave a nazi flag and claim they're doing so out of national pride, you're good with that, right?


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> 4. We, as a nation, have been fine with it. And still are. It is just you lefties that are pretending to be upset, to give you something to cry "Evul Wacism" over.


Dumbfuck -- you do not speak for the nation.


----------



## Faun

Correll said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I don't believe you when you say Impeached Trump didn't mean "my version of the people."
> 
> It was a racist rally. It was sponsored by racists. It was promoted by racists. All of the named guests were racists. The purpose of the rally was to unite different factions of racists. There was no one there on the right but racists. There were no "very fine people" there. Racists are not "very fine people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. In my opinion, and obviously in Trump's, there were a significant portion of the protesters who were lured there under false pretenses by the rally organizers, and who did not share the racist views of the rally organizers.
Click to expand...

You don't speak for Impeached Trump, ya dumbass.


----------



## IM2

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We, as a nation, have been fine with it. And still are. It is just you lefties that are pretending to be upset, to give you something to cry "Evul Wacism" over.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck -- you do not speak for the nation.
Click to expand...


Correll we haven't been fine with a motherfucking thing. Only white racists like you are trying to lie about this being some kind of symbol of regional pride. And you know you're lying.


----------



## Grumblenuts

You mean you didn't know?  ALL of US. We ALL.. get together and celebrate our past wars. Every year. Like clockwork. We "rebrand" ALL the symbols and leaders. Especially those of the losers. Because.. I mean.. deep down.. don't we ALL understand that? Well,.. just because they were outgunned or outnumbered.. Just because they lost.. At horrific expense to ALL of our people and nation.. Doesn't mean they were wrong.  Does it? They always had at least one great point, one really clever commander, one super cool symbol that really grabs ALL at their gut level.. I mean


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political  zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Why didn't you post these pictures of the Confederate flag...?
Click to expand...



Because my point was of the successful rebranding of the symbols that took place after the civil war. 


Not about the failed attempt by some racists to co-opt the symbol for their uses. 


That being said, I am sure the white supremacists of today, appreciate you siding with them. 

D'uh.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IM2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"It is not inherently racist to support confederate historical statues. "*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is. Because that's what the confederacy stood for.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And generations ago, we as a nation, decided to rebrand them as symbols of regional pride. And have been fine with that for 5 generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You do understand that the smart people disagree with you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I've posted pictures from joint Union/Confederate Army reunions, with the American FLag and Confederate Battle Flag being flown together.
> 
> 
> YOur denial of history, is not you being smart, it is you being a political  zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You talking about flags or statues? Make up your mind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Symbols of regional pride.  That is what they both are now, so the point is valid. As you know. So, why you pretending not to?
> 
> Oh, right. YOu know that your position is false, so games like that are your only hope of even pretending to "score a point".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So if nazi's wave a nazi flag and claim they're doing so out of national pride, you're good with that, right?
Click to expand...



Dude. YOu are dishonest about everYthing, up to and including transcripts that I can rub in your face.


you can't do comparisons. That requires some degree of honesty, and yours is at ZERO.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We, as a nation, have been fine with it. And still are. It is just you lefties that are pretending to be upset, to give you something to cry "Evul Wacism" over.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck -- you do not speak for the nation.
Click to expand...



I can point to a stated policy of reconciliation, and over a century of living in harmony, and then, yes, I can speak for America.


----------



## Correll

Faun said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> I don't believe you when you say Impeached Trump didn't mean "my version of the people."
> 
> It was a racist rally. It was sponsored by racists. It was promoted by racists. All of the named guests were racists. The purpose of the rally was to unite different factions of racists. There was no one there on the right but racists. There were no "very fine people" there. Racists are not "very fine people."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree. In my opinion, and obviously in Trump's, there were a significant portion of the protesters who were lured there under false pretenses by the rally organizers, and who did not share the racist views of the rally organizers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't speak for Impeached Trump, ya dumbass.
Click to expand...



By looking at his clear and explicit words, it is obvious to any honest person what his intent was, and that him and I are on the same page here,

so, yes, I can speak for him.


----------



## Correll

IM2 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 4. We, as a nation, have been fine with it. And still are. It is just you lefties that are pretending to be upset, to give you something to cry "Evul Wacism" over.
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck -- you do not speak for the nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correll we haven't been fine with a motherfucking thing. Only white racists like you are trying to lie about this being some kind of symbol of regional pride. And you know you're lying.
Click to expand...



Sure we were. I know that you wish your ancestors had put up a fuss about it. But they did not. They had real concerns to worry about. 


But you don't get to lie about what they did.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> You mean you didn't know?  ALL of US. We ALL.. get together and celebrate our past wars. Every year. Like clockwork. We "rebrand" ALL the symbols and leaders. Especially those of the losers. Because.. I mean.. deep down.. don't we ALL understand that? Well,.. just because they were outgunned or outnumbered.. Just because they lost.. At horrific expense to ALL of our people and nation.. Doesn't mean they were wrong.  Does it? They always had at least one great point, one really clever commander, one super cool symbol that really grabs ALL at their gut level.. I mean





That you go to such hyperbole and Logical Fallacy of Argument by Ridicule, 


shows that you know you cannot win the debate honestly.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't know?  ALL of US. We ALL.. get together and celebrate our past wars. Every year. Like clockwork. We "rebrand" ALL the symbols and leaders. Especially those of the losers. Because.. I mean.. deep down.. don't we ALL understand that? Well,.. just because they were outgunned or outnumbered.. Just because they lost.. At horrific expense to ALL of our people and nation.. Doesn't mean they were wrong.  Does it? They always had at least one great point, one really clever commander, one super cool symbol that really grabs ALL at their gut level.. I mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you go to such hyperbole and Logical Fallacy of Argument by Ridicule,
> 
> 
> shows that you know you cannot win the debate honestly.
Click to expand...

But, but,.. I was arguing on your side!
WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME?!!!


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> you cannot win the debate honestly


 We've won!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you didn't know?  ALL of US. We ALL.. get together and celebrate our past wars. Every year. Like clockwork. We "rebrand" ALL the symbols and leaders. Especially those of the losers. Because.. I mean.. deep down.. don't we ALL understand that? Well,.. just because they were outgunned or outnumbered.. Just because they lost.. At horrific expense to ALL of our people and nation.. Doesn't mean they were wrong.  Does it? They always had at least one great point, one really clever commander, one super cool symbol that really grabs ALL at their gut level.. I mean
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That you go to such hyperbole and Logical Fallacy of Argument by Ridicule,
> 
> 
> shows that you know you cannot win the debate honestly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But, but,.. I was arguing on your side!
> WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT FROM ME?!!!
Click to expand...


What I want from you has changed. I have realized something.

I want you to come discuss this topic on a thread created for this topic.







						The Lesson of Charlottesville
					

So, I was debating with some liberals (grumblenuts, faun) on this site and they did what liberals like to do, and turned the discussion to the supposed racism of the Right, specifically, the way that President Trump, said that neo-nazis and white nationalists, were "very fine people", in...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cannot win the debate honestly
> 
> 
> 
> We've won!
Click to expand...




You are a liar. You do NOTHING but lie.


----------



## Grumblenuts

We won.


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> We won.




You lied, and I called you on it, over and over again. Everyone knows that. That you were an asshole about it, just means that you are an asshole.


You won nothing.


----------



## Grumblenuts

Correll said:


> You won


We know! But thanks!


----------



## Correll

Grumblenuts said:


> Correll said:
> 
> 
> 
> You won
> 
> 
> 
> We know! But thanks!
Click to expand...



Your being an asshole has been well established. you do not need to prove it anymore.


Come into my other thread to discuss what you and faun taught me about liberals.


----------

