HAHA. Court forces black baker to bake cake for KKK party

[Pogo]

Realize it or not, that is the argument you're making. The question isn't are blacks better off here ... the question is ... was it worth their ancestors being held in slavery for hundreds of years?

Since opportunities exist for them to go to where their ancestors came from and they don't go, tells me they think it is. If they thought going where their ancestors came from would be better, they'd go. I know I would but I realize that it isn't. Why would I want to go to an area where the Russia and the Ukraine are having a dispute. That's why my family left to start with.

WTF??? You think they think slavery was worth it to them because they're not returning to Africa??

Again, how is that different from saying Jews think the Holocaust was worth it because they ended up with Israel, and they now prefer to be in Israel than in Germany?

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

"in Africa". The whole thing. Because "they all look alike" to you.

Arrogant patronizing asshole.

 

[Faun]

Realize it or not, that is the argument you're making. The question isn't are blacks better off here ... the question is ... was it worth their ancestors being held in slavery for hundreds of years?

Since opportunities exist for them to go to where their ancestors came from and they don't go, tells me they think it is. If they thought going where their ancestors came from would be better, they'd go. I know I would but I realize that it isn't. Why would I want to go to an area where the Russia and the Ukraine are having a dispute. That's why my family left to start with.

WTF??? You think they think slavery was worth it to them because they're not returning to Africa??

Again, how is that different from saying Jews think the Holocaust was worth it because they ended up with Israel, and they now prefer to be in Israel than in Germany?

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

 

[bripat9643]

Don't think that where they came from was a cakewalk. If I recall correctly, and I do, the country of Liberia was established as a place for free blacks to either go back to Africa or to the continent of their ancestors. Since it isn't overpopulated, tells me many didn't want to go nor want to go now.

That you, or for that matter the white establishment of two centuries ago, would consider this "go back to the continent of their ancestors" jazz speaks volumes. As if the whole continent is some kind of monolith, and you can't be bothered with the diversity -- it's just "Africa". Sounds eerily like "they all look alike to me" .

Let's say you're a slave whose ancestors were shipped here from Thailand. Now we're gonna offer you a "resettlement in the continent of your ancestors" -- in Mongolia. Hey, it's the same continent, whatsa problem?

Not to mention, did you think the land they decided to call "Liberia" was just sitting there with nobody in it, like an empty hotel room? Not to mention a harsh climate, not to mention it's highly unlikely to be the land of your ancestors anyway...

The arrogance of this patronizing attitude speaks volumes.

What many blacks, and guilt ridden whites, want now is for blacks to be given reparations and/or rewarded with special treatment for what none living today experienced as a slave. Worse than that, they want white people to sit down, shut up, and be told how bad we are as a race for having done what we did including those like me who didn't take part in what white people are supposed to be ashamed of doing. Sorry, don't buy it.

Amazing how you fast-forwarded here by two hundred years without looking, as if the present just sprang up spontaneously from nothing. "Slavery" isn't the issue any more; no one who was a slave, or a slave owner, is alive today nor are their children. What the effect was of shipping human cargo over the ocean, dehumanizing them for centuries, and then one day cutting them loose in their forced-adopted continent, was to create an underclass, socially and econnomically. That's the part that nobody thought through when they invented racism and transatlantic slave shipping. Inventing Liberia wasn't anywhere near about to fix that.

The attitude that blacks, most of whom want to be called African Americans yet have never been to Africa, speaks volumes. If you want to be called something, at least have been to the location you reference in what you want to be called.

That's not even a token response.

Nor does it make sense on its face. I'm Irish myself, and yes I've been to Ireland --- but before I ever went to Ireland I was still Irish. I mean.... duh?

Did you demand you be called an Irish-American? If you were born here and lived here, you're an American with Irish heritage. Learn the difference. Perhaps African Americans should.

Don't be ridiculous. Many people hyphenate, not just blacks. America's a melting pot and many people hold on to their heritage by hyphenating.

The only ones who hyphenate are the ones who don't want to assimilate.

 

[Conservative65]

Since opportunities exist for them to go to where their ancestors came from and they don't go, tells me they think it is. If they thought going where their ancestors came from would be better, they'd go. I know I would but I realize that it isn't. Why would I want to go to an area where the Russia and the Ukraine are having a dispute. That's why my family left to start with.

WTF??? You think they think slavery was worth it to them because they're not returning to Africa??

Again, how is that different from saying Jews think the Holocaust was worth it because they ended up with Israel, and they now prefer to be in Israel than in Germany?

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

I said they speak for themselves and their actions speak loudly. If they show by their actions of staying that it's better here than it is where their ancestors came from, it tells me they believe it was worth it or they'd go back. I'm not saying it. Their actions are.

 

[Conservative65]

That you, or for that matter the white establishment of two centuries ago, would consider this "go back to the continent of their ancestors" jazz speaks volumes. As if the whole continent is some kind of monolith, and you can't be bothered with the diversity -- it's just "Africa". Sounds eerily like "they all look alike to me" .

Let's say you're a slave whose ancestors were shipped here from Thailand. Now we're gonna offer you a "resettlement in the continent of your ancestors" -- in Mongolia. Hey, it's the same continent, whatsa problem?

Not to mention, did you think the land they decided to call "Liberia" was just sitting there with nobody in it, like an empty hotel room? Not to mention a harsh climate, not to mention it's highly unlikely to be the land of your ancestors anyway...

The arrogance of this patronizing attitude speaks volumes.


Amazing how you fast-forwarded here by two hundred years without looking, as if the present just sprang up spontaneously from nothing. "Slavery" isn't the issue any more; no one who was a slave, or a slave owner, is alive today nor are their children. What the effect was of shipping human cargo over the ocean, dehumanizing them for centuries, and then one day cutting them loose in their forced-adopted continent, was to create an underclass, socially and econnomically. That's the part that nobody thought through when they invented racism and transatlantic slave shipping. Inventing Liberia wasn't anywhere near about to fix that.

The attitude that blacks, most of whom want to be called African Americans yet have never been to Africa, speaks volumes. If you want to be called something, at least have been to the location you reference in what you want to be called.

That's not even a token response.

Nor does it make sense on its face. I'm Irish myself, and yes I've been to Ireland --- but before I ever went to Ireland I was still Irish. I mean.... duh?

Did you demand you be called an Irish-American? If you were born here and lived here, you're an American with Irish heritage. Learn the difference. Perhaps African Americans should.

Don't be ridiculous. Many people hyphenate, not just blacks. America's a melting pot and many people hold on to their heritage by hyphenating.

The only ones who hyphenate are the ones who don't want to assimilate.

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

 

[bripat9643]

The attitude that blacks, most of whom want to be called African Americans yet have never been to Africa, speaks volumes. If you want to be called something, at least have been to the location you reference in what you want to be called.

That's not even a token response.

Nor does it make sense on its face. I'm Irish myself, and yes I've been to Ireland --- but before I ever went to Ireland I was still Irish. I mean.... duh?

Did you demand you be called an Irish-American? If you were born here and lived here, you're an American with Irish heritage. Learn the difference. Perhaps African Americans should.

Don't be ridiculous. Many people hyphenate, not just blacks. America's a melting pot and many people hold on to their heritage by hyphenating.

The only ones who hyphenate are the ones who don't want to assimilate.

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

 

[Faun]

Since opportunities exist for them to go to where their ancestors came from and they don't go, tells me they think it is. If they thought going where their ancestors came from would be better, they'd go. I know I would but I realize that it isn't. Why would I want to go to an area where the Russia and the Ukraine are having a dispute. That's why my family left to start with.

WTF??? You think they think slavery was worth it to them because they're not returning to Africa??

Again, how is that different from saying Jews think the Holocaust was worth it because they ended up with Israel, and they now prefer to be in Israel than in Germany?

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

Right back at ya .... only a Nazi conservative KKK shithead wanted to allow white America to continue its systemic discrimination against blacks after they won civil rights.

You're absolutely correct. I think everyone agreed the it's wrong for government compel people to discriminate, as in Affirmative Action. However, where we differ is when it comes to private business. Contrary to the left's claims, no one has a right to be served by a private business. That's what "private" means. The owners make the decisions, not the government and not a gang of Nazi queers.

That's how it was for blacks before Civil rights of the 60's. We're not returning to those days no matter how much you pine for your racist conservatives.

Unlike people who think others should cater to them, I don't care if a black owned business didn't serve me because I'm white. I'd go elsewhere and move along. They, much like the faggots, think people should tell them yes no matter what they ask.

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

 

[Wildman]

Conservatives like you just don't understand the issue.

being so brilliant with that reply, please explain in detail what the issue is ?

if you can !!

 

[Conservative65]

That's not even a token response.

Nor does it make sense on its face. I'm Irish myself, and yes I've been to Ireland --- but before I ever went to Ireland I was still Irish. I mean.... duh?

Did you demand you be called an Irish-American? If you were born here and lived here, you're an American with Irish heritage. Learn the difference. Perhaps African Americans should.

Don't be ridiculous. Many people hyphenate, not just blacks. America's a melting pot and many people hold on to their heritage by hyphenating.

The only ones who hyphenate are the ones who don't want to assimilate.

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

 

[Faun]

For hundreds of years, blacks were denied access to the same jobs and education as whites. Meaning that when the day came the law demanded they be treated as equals, they wouldn't qualify for most jobs because they didn't have as much work experience or as good an education.

The government rectified that uneven playing field with affirmative action. Should it still be around today after some 50 years of leveling? Probably not. But it was most certainly a necessity when it was passed.

Only a despicable Nazi dumbass liberal like you would admit that "levelling the playing field" means discrimination. My ancestors never owned a slave. They weren't even in the country before the Civil War. Why should the government discriminate against them?

Calling it "necessary" is just another despicable libturd rationalization. Who determines what is "necessary?" It's only "necessary" from the point of view of Marxist ideologues who believe government exists to make life fair. One thing that can't be denied is that it's a violation of the 14th Amendment, which hypocrites like you claim to worship, and it's unjust. There is no right to "equal opportunity" mentioned in the Constitution. The very notion is nonsensical. The bottom line is that Affirmative Action is a rejection of everything turds like you claim to believe in.

Who determined that? Our government. Who's our government?It's us -- we the people. As a society we determined the playing field was so drastically tilted in favor of whites following hundreds of years of suppression of blacks, that whites could no longer continue their inbred discrimination.

Wrong. WE are not the government.

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."

- H. L. Mencken -
​

Your belief that majority rule justifies everything is also obvious horseshit. A lynch mob is the essence of majority rule. Yet, I doubt even a liberals have advanced to the point of condoning that.

When anyone says "society decided" this or that, what they mean is that some mob decided it - no better in character or wisdom than a lynch mob. There is no pool of illimitable wisdom to be found in a mob, or "society" as you choose to call it. Clearly, the mob is not infallible, so your claim that society (a mob) made the decision isn't the trump card you believe it to be.

Dayam, you're ignorant. I trump your satirist with the Declaration of Independence.... "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

... and the U.S. Constitution ... "We the People of the United States...."

Where does either document claim "we are the government?"

The "we the people" claim in the Constitution is obviously false since a few men in Philadelphia wrote it, not all the people in the United States.

I can't help you are unable to comprehend the meaning of, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

 

[bripat9643]

WTF??? You think they think slavery was worth it to them because they're not returning to Africa??

Again, how is that different from saying Jews think the Holocaust was worth it because they ended up with Israel, and they now prefer to be in Israel than in Germany?

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

You're absolutely correct. I think everyone agreed the it's wrong for government compel people to discriminate, as in Affirmative Action. However, where we differ is when it comes to private business. Contrary to the left's claims, no one has a right to be served by a private business. That's what "private" means. The owners make the decisions, not the government and not a gang of Nazi queers.

That's how it was for blacks before Civil rights of the 60's. We're not returning to those days no matter how much you pine for your racist conservatives.

Unlike people who think others should cater to them, I don't care if a black owned business didn't serve me because I'm white. I'd go elsewhere and move along. They, much like the faggots, think people should tell them yes no matter what they ask.

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

You just skewered yourself because forcing a business to serve you obviously isn't an unalienable right. It's highly alienable.

 

[Faun]

That's how it was for blacks before Civil rights of the 60's. We're not returning to those days no matter how much you pine for your racist conservatives.

That's how it was for everyone prior to 1964. Saying "we're not going back to those days" is meaningless since no one has invented the time machine yet. However, we can easily repeal those laws. I realize that will produce stubborn resistance from the likes of you and the queers, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Thousands of things deemed impossible by libturds happen every day.

Damn, you're fucking stupid. A time machine is not required to return to the policies of pre-1964.

You said "we aren't returning to those days," which means going back in time. No one is even proposing to return to those policies, like Jim Crow. The only thing that has been proposed is repealing the Public Accommodation statute, which is a clear violation of the Constitution and the property rights of every business owner.

Meaning living like we were back then you flaming moron -- not traveling back in time.

Mmmm, no. As I pointed out, no one is proposing to restore the Jim Crow laws.

You're an imbecile.

Great, yet another strawman. I never said anyone is. It's quite revealing how difficult it is for you to keep up with a conversation.

 

[bripat9643]

Only a despicable Nazi dumbass liberal like you would admit that "levelling the playing field" means discrimination. My ancestors never owned a slave. They weren't even in the country before the Civil War. Why should the government discriminate against them?

Calling it "necessary" is just another despicable libturd rationalization. Who determines what is "necessary?" It's only "necessary" from the point of view of Marxist ideologues who believe government exists to make life fair. One thing that can't be denied is that it's a violation of the 14th Amendment, which hypocrites like you claim to worship, and it's unjust. There is no right to "equal opportunity" mentioned in the Constitution. The very notion is nonsensical. The bottom line is that Affirmative Action is a rejection of everything turds like you claim to believe in.

Who determined that? Our government. Who's our government?It's us -- we the people. As a society we determined the playing field was so drastically tilted in favor of whites following hundreds of years of suppression of blacks, that whites could no longer continue their inbred discrimination.

Wrong. WE are not the government.

"The government consists of a gang of men exactly like you and me. They have, taking one with another, no special talent for the business of government; they have only a talent for getting and holding office. Their principal device to that end is to search out groups who pant and pine for something they can't get and to promise to give it to them. Nine times out of ten that promise is worth nothing. The tenth time is made good by looting A to satisfy B. In other words, government is a broker in pillage, and every election is sort of an advance auction sale of stolen goods."

- H. L. Mencken -
​

Your belief that majority rule justifies everything is also obvious horseshit. A lynch mob is the essence of majority rule. Yet, I doubt even a liberals have advanced to the point of condoning that.

When anyone says "society decided" this or that, what they mean is that some mob decided it - no better in character or wisdom than a lynch mob. There is no pool of illimitable wisdom to be found in a mob, or "society" as you choose to call it. Clearly, the mob is not infallible, so your claim that society (a mob) made the decision isn't the trump card you believe it to be.

Dayam, you're ignorant. I trump your satirist with the Declaration of Independence.... "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

... and the U.S. Constitution ... "We the People of the United States...."

Where does either document claim "we are the government?"

The "we the people" claim in the Constitution is obviously false since a few men in Philadelphia wrote it, not all the people in the United States.

I can't help you are unable to comprehend the meaning of, "Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

The sentence structure indicates the author viewed government as something separate from "men" or "the people." Otherwise he wouldn't have said they are instituted "among men." Something that is "among men" is separate from the men.

You skewered yourself again. This whole libturd "we are the government" meme is just another scheme designed to fool people into believing that they agreed to be looted and coerced by the government. No one ever did.

 

[Faun]

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

That's how it was for blacks before Civil rights of the 60's. We're not returning to those days no matter how much you pine for your racist conservatives.

Unlike people who think others should cater to them, I don't care if a black owned business didn't serve me because I'm white. I'd go elsewhere and move along. They, much like the faggots, think people should tell them yes no matter what they ask.

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

You just skewered yourself because forcing a business to serve you obviously isn't an unalienable right. It's highly alienable.

Moron, it's protecting the inalienable rights of the consumers.

 

[bripat9643]

That's how it was for everyone prior to 1964. Saying "we're not going back to those days" is meaningless since no one has invented the time machine yet. However, we can easily repeal those laws. I realize that will produce stubborn resistance from the likes of you and the queers, but that doesn't mean it's impossible. Thousands of things deemed impossible by libturds happen every day.

Damn, you're fucking stupid. A time machine is not required to return to the policies of pre-1964.

You said "we aren't returning to those days," which means going back in time. No one is even proposing to return to those policies, like Jim Crow. The only thing that has been proposed is repealing the Public Accommodation statute, which is a clear violation of the Constitution and the property rights of every business owner.

Meaning living like we were back then you flaming moron -- not traveling back in time.

Mmmm, no. As I pointed out, no one is proposing to restore the Jim Crow laws.

You're an imbecile.

Great, yet another strawman. I never said anyone is. It's quite revealing how difficult it is for you to keep up with a conversation.

Of course you did. You said I wanted to go back to the policies of the 1950s. Wasn't Jim Crow one of those?

 

[Faun]

That you, or for that matter the white establishment of two centuries ago, would consider this "go back to the continent of their ancestors" jazz speaks volumes. As if the whole continent is some kind of monolith, and you can't be bothered with the diversity -- it's just "Africa". Sounds eerily like "they all look alike to me" .

Let's say you're a slave whose ancestors were shipped here from Thailand. Now we're gonna offer you a "resettlement in the continent of your ancestors" -- in Mongolia. Hey, it's the same continent, whatsa problem?

Not to mention, did you think the land they decided to call "Liberia" was just sitting there with nobody in it, like an empty hotel room? Not to mention a harsh climate, not to mention it's highly unlikely to be the land of your ancestors anyway...

The arrogance of this patronizing attitude speaks volumes.


Amazing how you fast-forwarded here by two hundred years without looking, as if the present just sprang up spontaneously from nothing. "Slavery" isn't the issue any more; no one who was a slave, or a slave owner, is alive today nor are their children. What the effect was of shipping human cargo over the ocean, dehumanizing them for centuries, and then one day cutting them loose in their forced-adopted continent, was to create an underclass, socially and econnomically. That's the part that nobody thought through when they invented racism and transatlantic slave shipping. Inventing Liberia wasn't anywhere near about to fix that.

The attitude that blacks, most of whom want to be called African Americans yet have never been to Africa, speaks volumes. If you want to be called something, at least have been to the location you reference in what you want to be called.

That's not even a token response.

Nor does it make sense on its face. I'm Irish myself, and yes I've been to Ireland --- but before I ever went to Ireland I was still Irish. I mean.... duh?

Did you demand you be called an Irish-American? If you were born here and lived here, you're an American with Irish heritage. Learn the difference. Perhaps African Americans should.

Don't be ridiculous. Many people hyphenate, not just blacks. America's a melting pot and many people hold on to their heritage by hyphenating.

The only ones who hyphenate are the ones who don't want to assimilate.

Spits an imbecile.

 

[Conservative65]

WTF??? You think they think slavery was worth it to them because they're not returning to Africa??

Again, how is that different from saying Jews think the Holocaust was worth it because they ended up with Israel, and they now prefer to be in Israel than in Germany?

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

You're absolutely correct. I think everyone agreed the it's wrong for government compel people to discriminate, as in Affirmative Action. However, where we differ is when it comes to private business. Contrary to the left's claims, no one has a right to be served by a private business. That's what "private" means. The owners make the decisions, not the government and not a gang of Nazi queers.

That's how it was for blacks before Civil rights of the 60's. We're not returning to those days no matter how much you pine for your racist conservatives.

Unlike people who think others should cater to them, I don't care if a black owned business didn't serve me because I'm white. I'd go elsewhere and move along. They, much like the faggots, think people should tell them yes no matter what they ask.

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

Not exactly. Problem is what many Liberals claim as rights simply aren't rights at all.

The problem with your use of the Declaration is that Liberals confuse pursuit of happiness as being the same as a guarantee.

The concept of how the government should function comes form the Constitution and it is anything but your version of Liberal. It may be Liberal but the powers granted to the federal government are of a traditional Liberal mindset, a.k.a Libertarian, not bleeding heart Liberal.

Governments do get their ability to government from the people who elect them. Problem is the people electing Liberals of today want those officials to secure things that aren't rights. Something isn't a right simply because someone wants it but can't have it. People have the right to vote. People have the right to not incriminate themselves in a court of law. People have a right to a fair and speedy trial. Marriage isn't a right. Welfare and food stamps aren't a right. Abortion isn't a right. Turds like you on the Supreme Court may seem to think so but the founding fathers would disagree.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

Unlike people who think others should cater to them, I don't care if a black owned business didn't serve me because I'm white. I'd go elsewhere and move along. They, much like the faggots, think people should tell them yes no matter what they ask.

That's much easier to say when you're white and make up almost 3/4ths of the nation's population. Not so easy when you're black, making up only about 12½%. That severely limits one's options.

But you do expose the reason why the government had to step in. Left to their own accord, the racist south would still be denying blacks opportunities to this day if they could.

Only liberal turds think government exists to implement their schemes to perfect society. There is no reason government has to force a business to serve people they don't want to serve. None. The fact that you object is not a reason. It's pure petulance.

Wow, finally some clarity. Turns out, as a conservative, you don't understand this nation was built on that "Liberal turd" premise.

If nothing else, you concede the forming of this nation was based on Liberal philosophies. Here, from the Declaration of Independence ... the government was to protect our inalienable rights ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,​

You just skewered yourself because forcing a business to serve you obviously isn't an unalienable right. It's highly alienable.

Moron, it's protecting the inalienable rights of the consumers.

As I just explained, Even if it was an actual right, forcing a business to serve you isn't an unalienable right. It can be alienated from you at the stroke of a pen. What happens to this right on a dessert Island? Where was this right prior to 1964?

 

[Pogo]

Did you demand you be called an Irish-American? If you were born here and lived here, you're an American with Irish heritage. Learn the difference. Perhaps African Americans should.

Don't be ridiculous. Many people hyphenate, not just blacks. America's a melting pot and many people hold on to their heritage by hyphenating.

The only ones who hyphenate are the ones who don't want to assimilate.

I can't say with absolutely certainty that I've never seen the term European American in the place where White used to be on an application or any equal employment formed used by HR departments with applications. I can say, although not on all forms, that I have seen African American in the place of Black on those forms.

What about whites from S. Africa. Aren't they African Americans? Wait, African American doesn't mean from Africa, it's the politically correct term for black.

I once saw the term "African American African" used. You know you're in La-La land when you see locutions like that.

When someone demands they be called African American instead of black, I ask them to speak one of the many African languages. Most look at me quite confused.

I have no doubt you get that look for most of the darrhea that spills out of your mouth in general. Especially given your penchant for changing the subject when you're losing.

 

[Faun]

WTF??? You think they think slavery was worth it to them because they're not returning to Africa??

Again, how is that different from saying Jews think the Holocaust was worth it because they ended up with Israel, and they now prefer to be in Israel than in Germany?

A general concept is that people will go where they think things are better. I've had several friends and family members move far away because what was offered there was better than what was offered here. If they thought it was better here, they would have stayed. It's easy if you want to understand. People go where they think it's better. Actions speak louder than words. Seems blacks say one thing by desiring to be called a hyphenated term yet their actions say another.

Again, the question is not are they better off here ... it's was it worth their ancestors enduring hundreds of years of slavery to bring them here. You seem to be saying the answer to that is "yes."

Apparently it is to them since they stay. If they thought things were better in Africa, they'd go. Since they stay, actions speak volumes. Whether it was worth it isn't for me to decide. It's for them to decide and their actions give me their answer.

If you thought, taking into all factors, that living somewhere else was better for you, wouldn't you go? If you had a choice and didn't, it would tell me that you thinks it's better where you were. How is it any different for blacks?

Well you don't speak for them. Don't even pretend that you do. Again, you're trying to make this about where they're better off. I'm not speaking to where they're better off. Let's assume they are better off here ... the question is -- was it worth their ancestors to endure hundreds of years of slavery?

I said they speak for themselves and their actions speak loudly. If they show by their actions of staying that it's better here than it is where their ancestors came from, it tells me they believe it was worth it or they'd go back. I'm not saying it. Their actions are.

Seriously? You're that delusional that you think if they think it's better to live here now, that somehow translates into them believing slavery was worth it? That doesn't even make sense, Not even when employing conservative logic.

In reality, the two subjects have nothing to do with each other.