Hate Rising: White supremacy's rise in the U.S.

[Correll]

The activity you sited earlier, ie antisemitic violence, is not purely a white supremacist activity.


YOu keep ignoring that.

The increase could be from upset muslim, or lefties, or even just an increase in false reports, to smear the nation. As the person making the claim it is on you to support it.


I'd have to turn off my ad blocker to see your link. cut and paste the part where they support your argument.

This is not even my thread, so there is no reason for me to cut and paste anything for anyones convienience. And this is not "my argument". I simply reported what is regularly in the news.


I am ignoring nothing. Practically every link posted reflects that the rise in anti semitic activity is almost all attributed to white supremacist involvement.

As opposed to you speculating on "who it MIGHT be attributed to" , feel free to produce any source that supports YOUR insistence that there reallly is not an increase in such activity.

I've already posted several, and I even EXCLUDED any information from the SPLC, since you extreme rightwingers insist that they are not credible

Do any of those sources support their claim, with something like say...


Numbers for arrest reports showing that the rise is caused solely by violent self identified white supremacists?




The fact that you see a lot of media talking heads making the same assumption you do, that a rise in reports can only be because of a rise is white supremacists,


is not supporting evidence.

So news agencies from coast to coast are identifying the same trend of incidents, and they are
"ALL making assumptions"?

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements ever made in this forum.

Says the man that cannot find one example of those media sites actually supporting their assumptions with anything other than other people's assumptions.


Calling it "ludicrous" is not a supporting argument, EITHER.

Look up the definition of "Ludicrous", and educate yourself, for a change.

It is within the realm of someone being shown more than enough information to support a trend in behavior and actions, and still being foolish enough to deny that there is truth in what is being reported.

Showing a bunch of talking heads repeating the same unsupported assumption, is NOT "more than enough information".

 

[Correll]

I asked you to tell me if Dean had anything to say, other than calling people racist without supporting any of it.


That is what you would have to do, to support your claim that I was "projecting" or some such shit.



You did not do that. For obvious reasons that we both know. That EVERYONE knows.


Calling Dean a race baiting asshole is completely called for.

Well, Dean is far from the first person to refer to #45 as a racist


Just because you asked me do examine whst "Dean says", does not mean that I will
You don't tell me what to do with my own time.

In fact, Quite a few have. Even some who have worked with him since he took office.

I seriously doubt that everyone of them are "race baiting assholes"

Sometimes, certain people sometimes think they see something in others that they really don't like about themselves. Maybe that's your issue.

And none of those that have called him that, have been able to back it up with anything more than spin and bullshit.


And calling someone such a vile name, without good cause, is that act of an asshole.


Thus, every fucking one of them, is indeed, a race baiting asshole.


Ever. Fucking. One.

Thrre have been plenty of statements that "#45" has made that could be construed as "racist", and for good reason.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them, yet freely apply the same so called " vile" term to so many others, is humorously interesting, to say the least.

Sure.

Like referring to both sides of the statue issue as having "some very fine people", explicitly stating that you were NOT referring to the white supremacists and having the media lie to the people that you said "some white supremacists were very fine people."



I acknowledge that the MSM is a bunch of vile race baiting asshole liars.



The a lie is repeated, is not proof it is not a lie.



Page 30 and none of you libs can support the race baiting bullshit of the OP or the thread title.


Hell, it seems that most of you don't understand the CONCEPT of supporting a conclusion.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theory believing self deluded, parrot.



That being said, what news source IS credible in your biased view? Or are there any?

Poor you. Surrounded by a world full of "race baiting assholes"....including every news media publication in the country.

Nothing left to do here except to view you as cheap entertainment


LMAFAO.

ALL you have been able to cite from these sources, is unsupported assumptions on who or what is causing the rise in antisemitic attacks.



You have not given me ONE source that even TRIES to support this assumption.


What you need to support your assumption, is a study where they researched all the reports from the last couple of years, the more the better, and counted the ones that were PROVEN to be white supremacist attacks, as opposed to other antisemites, AND finding that the rise is caused by white supremacists instead of all the other possibilities.

 

[katsteve2012]

Well, Dean is far from the first person to refer to #45 as a racist


Just because you asked me do examine whst "Dean says", does not mean that I will
You don't tell me what to do with my own time.

In fact, Quite a few have. Even some who have worked with him since he took office.

I seriously doubt that everyone of them are "race baiting assholes"

Sometimes, certain people sometimes think they see something in others that they really don't like about themselves. Maybe that's your issue.

And none of those that have called him that, have been able to back it up with anything more than spin and bullshit.


And calling someone such a vile name, without good cause, is that act of an asshole.


Thus, every fucking one of them, is indeed, a race baiting asshole.


Ever. Fucking. One.

Thrre have been plenty of statements that "#45" has made that could be construed as "racist", and for good reason.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them, yet freely apply the same so called " vile" term to so many others, is humorously interesting, to say the least.

Sure.

Like referring to both sides of the statue issue as having "some very fine people", explicitly stating that you were NOT referring to the white supremacists and having the media lie to the people that you said "some white supremacists were very fine people."



I acknowledge that the MSM is a bunch of vile race baiting asshole liars.



The a lie is repeated, is not proof it is not a lie.



Page 30 and none of you libs can support the race baiting bullshit of the OP or the thread title.


Hell, it seems that most of you don't understand the CONCEPT of supporting a conclusion.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theory believing self deluded, parrot.



That being said, what news source IS credible in your biased view? Or are there any?

Poor you. Surrounded by a world full of "race baiting assholes"....including every news media publication in the country.

Nothing left to do here except to view you as cheap entertainment


LMAFAO.

ALL you have been able to cite from these sources, is unsupported assumptions on who or what is causing the rise in antisemitic attacks.



You have not given me ONE source that even TRIES to support this assumption.


What you need to support your assumption, is a study where they researched all the reports from the last couple of years, the more the better, and counted the ones that were PROVEN to be white supremacist attacks, as opposed to other antisemites, AND finding that the rise is caused by white supremacists instead of all the other possibilities.

Then prove otherwise. Post something credible besides "your opinion" to debunk what most news sources are saying.

That aside. I am not wasting another second debating with you about "presenting information", because up until now, you've presented none.

 

[katsteve2012]

This is not even my thread, so there is no reason for me to cut and paste anything for anyones convienience. And this is not "my argument". I simply reported what is regularly in the news.


I am ignoring nothing. Practically every link posted reflects that the rise in anti semitic activity is almost all attributed to white supremacist involvement.

As opposed to you speculating on "who it MIGHT be attributed to" , feel free to produce any source that supports YOUR insistence that there reallly is not an increase in such activity.

I've already posted several, and I even EXCLUDED any information from the SPLC, since you extreme rightwingers insist that they are not credible

Do any of those sources support their claim, with something like say...


Numbers for arrest reports showing that the rise is caused solely by violent self identified white supremacists?




The fact that you see a lot of media talking heads making the same assumption you do, that a rise in reports can only be because of a rise is white supremacists,


is not supporting evidence.

So news agencies from coast to coast are identifying the same trend of incidents, and they are
"ALL making assumptions"?

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements ever made in this forum.

Says the man that cannot find one example of those media sites actually supporting their assumptions with anything other than other people's assumptions.


Calling it "ludicrous" is not a supporting argument, EITHER.

Look up the definition of "Ludicrous", and educate yourself, for a change.

It is within the realm of someone being shown more than enough information to support a trend in behavior and actions, and still being foolish enough to deny that there is truth in what is being reported.

Showing a bunch of talking heads repeating the same unsupported assumption, is NOT "more than enough information".

Just because YOU state that they are all "talking heads", does not make it so.

Post something from any publication that you find that proves anything to the contrary.

 

[Taz]

"In all of our years of tracking, we've never seen this many [hate] groups," Heidi Beirich told CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil. Beirich is the director of Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) Intelligence Project, which monitors hate group activity online. "We've never seen their ideas penetrating the mainstream the way they are. I would say most Americans don't realize how much of this there is."

The SPLC estimates that there are currently more than 900 hate groups -- organizations with beliefs that attack an entire group of people -- operating in the country. Many of these hate groups subscribe to the ideals of white supremacy.

In fact, Beirich says the number of hate groups has doubled over the past two decades -- a trend that appears to follow the impact minorities, financial crisis and political elections have on society.

According to the SPLC, there's a new generation of so-called white nationalism being run by millennials. Matt Heimbach, one of the main organizers of the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, is the face of this movement.

Hate Rising: White supremacy's rise in the U.S.

This is a trend we have seen going on big time since 2016.

I came along at the end of the 50s and these types of rallies were big in those days.

Trumpleshitskin has simply made it ok to be openly racist, so it's not necessarily such a big increase as it is that they are now more visible.

 

[Correll]

I live on a world where it really pays to say bad things about your enemies, whether it is true or not.


Thus, when someone says something bad about me or mine, I want to see it supported.


(the white supremacist are not mine. Your claim that President Trump is responsible for the alleged "rise" is what I am referring to. Don't bore me by pretending to not understand this)



Citing that other people that hate President Trump and his supporters say the same thing you are assuming, is not supporting the claim.




BTW, your use of the term "Very good people"? Is another media lie about what Trump said. Trump explicitly stated that he was not referring to white supremacist with that comment, and the media lied about it, and now you are repeating that lie.


Ironically by doing so, you just demonstrated my point, about large numbers of liberals making the same lie, over and over again.



To smear their enemies. With lies.





The claim of a rise in white supremacy, is completely unsupported. The idea that Trump is responsible, for something that is not happening, is beyond unsupported.


It is a fantasy built on a foundation of lies and assholeness.

Feel free to point out where I attribute the rise in white supremacist activity to "Trump".

I don't. But many publications do. I think it actually started when Obama was elected.

I have provided more than ample support of there being a rise in ACTIONS that are consistent with white supremacist ideology, and your refusal to acknowledge the truth is not my issue.

As far as the rest of your rambling rhetoric, it is the same old recycled, and frequently repeated narrative.

"The media lies about Trump. We are being smeared"

What is humorous, is that you continue to insist that the media "lies" about Trump.

But, not once have you ever posted a single, credible source that proves that they are in fact lying.

So I should just take your "word" that they are


Really?

And what's the name of the planet that you claim to live on?

The ACTIONS you cite could be consistent with white supremacist ideology.


THey could also be consist with certain lefty ideologies, or Muslim ideology.


INdeed, they could be consist with liberal ideology, as a rise in false claims to support the narrative being used to smear Trump.



You have not been able to cite a single credible source that actually looks at who is committing these supposed additional crimes, to support the ASSUMPTION, that they are all, or mostly being done by white supremacists.




And the media does lie, as I pointed out when you lied about the "Very good people" lie.

Not sure how many more articles of incidents that you need to be provided with.

But, one thing is a fact. All that you have done is to "speculate", and provided not a SINGLE shred of evidence to support your own speculation.

"Lefties and Muslims"? Seriously?

Showing that lots of people repeat an unproven assumption, is not a supporting argument, and certainly not supporting EVIDENCE.




Yes, lefties and muslims. You find antisemitism among both groups.


You are aware of that, are you not?

Why don't you post some incidents of it happening as opposed to asking me if "I'm aware of it"?

Sure.

Here is a nice over view of the trend.


New antisemitism - Wikipedia


But I know what you want is anecdotal examples, because you're a liberal.


Women's March leader Tamika Mallory defends relationship with Farrakhan



Founder of the Woman's March? Oh, yeah, she's a leftie.


"She has also repeatedly and lavishly praised Farrakhan on social media, and Farrakhan has returned the favor, complimenting her during his February Saviour's Day speech. .."


"In that same speech, Farrakhan also said that Jews control the media, Hollywood, the FBI, most of Europe, and Mexico, according to the Anti-Defamation League. The "white people running Mexico are Mexican-Jews," Farrakhan told the crowd."


Here is another one. It was widely assumed to be white supremacists when it happened.


Israel convicts hacker who threatened U.S. Jewish centers


"A Tel Aviv district court convicted an Israeli Jewish man for making a string of bomb threats targeting Jewish community centers in the United States...."

 

[Correll]

And none of those that have called him that, have been able to back it up with anything more than spin and bullshit.


And calling someone such a vile name, without good cause, is that act of an asshole.


Thus, every fucking one of them, is indeed, a race baiting asshole.


Ever. Fucking. One.

Thrre have been plenty of statements that "#45" has made that could be construed as "racist", and for good reason.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them, yet freely apply the same so called " vile" term to so many others, is humorously interesting, to say the least.

Sure.

Like referring to both sides of the statue issue as having "some very fine people", explicitly stating that you were NOT referring to the white supremacists and having the media lie to the people that you said "some white supremacists were very fine people."



I acknowledge that the MSM is a bunch of vile race baiting asshole liars.



The a lie is repeated, is not proof it is not a lie.



Page 30 and none of you libs can support the race baiting bullshit of the OP or the thread title.


Hell, it seems that most of you don't understand the CONCEPT of supporting a conclusion.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theory believing self deluded, parrot.



That being said, what news source IS credible in your biased view? Or are there any?

Poor you. Surrounded by a world full of "race baiting assholes"....including every news media publication in the country.

Nothing left to do here except to view you as cheap entertainment


LMAFAO.

ALL you have been able to cite from these sources, is unsupported assumptions on who or what is causing the rise in antisemitic attacks.



You have not given me ONE source that even TRIES to support this assumption.


What you need to support your assumption, is a study where they researched all the reports from the last couple of years, the more the better, and counted the ones that were PROVEN to be white supremacist attacks, as opposed to other antisemites, AND finding that the rise is caused by white supremacists instead of all the other possibilities.

Then prove otherwise. Post something credible besides "your opinion" to debunk what most news sources are saying.

That aside. I am not wasting another second debating with you about "presenting information", because up until now, you've presented none.

1. You libs are making the claim, it is up to you to support it.

2. You want me to review all the antisemitic attacks over the last couple of years, looking at convicted attackers and analyse trends, in how the perpetrators self identify and how that has changed over the years?

I don't have that ability. I'm not a researcher, nor do I really have the math. I could hire a grad student I guess, but my wife would bitch about the cost.

I don't think your request is reasonable.

 

[Correll]

Do any of those sources support their claim, with something like say...


Numbers for arrest reports showing that the rise is caused solely by violent self identified white supremacists?




The fact that you see a lot of media talking heads making the same assumption you do, that a rise in reports can only be because of a rise is white supremacists,


is not supporting evidence.

So news agencies from coast to coast are identifying the same trend of incidents, and they are
"ALL making assumptions"?

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements ever made in this forum.

Says the man that cannot find one example of those media sites actually supporting their assumptions with anything other than other people's assumptions.


Calling it "ludicrous" is not a supporting argument, EITHER.

Look up the definition of "Ludicrous", and educate yourself, for a change.

It is within the realm of someone being shown more than enough information to support a trend in behavior and actions, and still being foolish enough to deny that there is truth in what is being reported.

Showing a bunch of talking heads repeating the same unsupported assumption, is NOT "more than enough information".

Just because YOU state that they are all "talking heads", does not make it so.

Post something from any publication that you find that proves anything to the contrary.

The point was not whether they are "talking heads" or not, but that they are all just repeating the same unsupported assumptions.


And what makes that so, is that that is what they are doing as demonstrated by your links showing that.

 

[Correll]

And none of those that have called him that, have been able to back it up with anything more than spin and bullshit.


And calling someone such a vile name, without good cause, is that act of an asshole.


Thus, every fucking one of them, is indeed, a race baiting asshole.


Ever. Fucking. One.

Thrre have been plenty of statements that "#45" has made that could be construed as "racist", and for good reason.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them, yet freely apply the same so called " vile" term to so many others, is humorously interesting, to say the least.

Sure.

Like referring to both sides of the statue issue as having "some very fine people", explicitly stating that you were NOT referring to the white supremacists and having the media lie to the people that you said "some white supremacists were very fine people."



I acknowledge that the MSM is a bunch of vile race baiting asshole liars.



The a lie is repeated, is not proof it is not a lie.



Page 30 and none of you libs can support the race baiting bullshit of the OP or the thread title.


Hell, it seems that most of you don't understand the CONCEPT of supporting a conclusion.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theory believing self deluded, parrot.



That being said, what news source IS credible in your biased view? Or are there any?

Poor you. Surrounded by a world full of "race baiting assholes"....including every news media publication in the country.

Nothing left to do here except to view you as cheap entertainment


LMAFAO.

ALL you have been able to cite from these sources, is unsupported assumptions on who or what is causing the rise in antisemitic attacks.



You have not given me ONE source that even TRIES to support this assumption.


What you need to support your assumption, is a study where they researched all the reports from the last couple of years, the more the better, and counted the ones that were PROVEN to be white supremacist attacks, as opposed to other antisemites, AND finding that the rise is caused by white supremacists instead of all the other possibilities.

Then prove otherwise. Post something credible besides "your opinion" to debunk what most news sources are saying.

That aside. I am not wasting another second debating with you about "presenting information", because up until now, you've presented none.

I'm not the one making the claim. You libs are.


ANd you can't support it, yet you still insist on making it, because you can smear your enemies with it.

 

[Correll]

"In all of our years of tracking, we've never seen this many [hate] groups," Heidi Beirich told CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil. Beirich is the director of Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) Intelligence Project, which monitors hate group activity online. "We've never seen their ideas penetrating the mainstream the way they are. I would say most Americans don't realize how much of this there is."

The SPLC estimates that there are currently more than 900 hate groups -- organizations with beliefs that attack an entire group of people -- operating in the country. Many of these hate groups subscribe to the ideals of white supremacy.

In fact, Beirich says the number of hate groups has doubled over the past two decades -- a trend that appears to follow the impact minorities, financial crisis and political elections have on society.

According to the SPLC, there's a new generation of so-called white nationalism being run by millennials. Matt Heimbach, one of the main organizers of the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, is the face of this movement.

Hate Rising: White supremacy's rise in the U.S.

This is a trend we have seen going on big time since 2016.

I came along at the end of the 50s and these types of rallies were big in those days.

Trumpleshitskin has simply made it ok to be openly racist, so it's not necessarily such a big increase as it is that they are now more visible.

1. No, he hasn't.

2. That is the claim you fucktards are making. None of you can back it up, of course.

 

[Taz]

"In all of our years of tracking, we've never seen this many [hate] groups," Heidi Beirich told CBS News correspondent Tony Dokoupil. Beirich is the director of Southern Poverty Law Center's (SPLC) Intelligence Project, which monitors hate group activity online. "We've never seen their ideas penetrating the mainstream the way they are. I would say most Americans don't realize how much of this there is."

The SPLC estimates that there are currently more than 900 hate groups -- organizations with beliefs that attack an entire group of people -- operating in the country. Many of these hate groups subscribe to the ideals of white supremacy.

In fact, Beirich says the number of hate groups has doubled over the past two decades -- a trend that appears to follow the impact minorities, financial crisis and political elections have on society.

According to the SPLC, there's a new generation of so-called white nationalism being run by millennials. Matt Heimbach, one of the main organizers of the "Unite the Right" rally in Charlottesville, is the face of this movement.

Hate Rising: White supremacy's rise in the U.S.

This is a trend we have seen going on big time since 2016.

I came along at the end of the 50s and these types of rallies were big in those days.

Trumpleshitskin has simply made it ok to be openly racist, so it's not necessarily such a big increase as it is that they are now more visible.

1. No, he hasn't.

2. That is the claim you fucktards are making. None of you can back it up, of course.

All the racist groups have come out in support of Hair Trump. At least have the courage to own what he is.

 

[katsteve2012]

No. I'm not blind. And, from what I have seen, far more intelligent than you are.

You call people names as a standard response. Go back and read your own posts.

You have a very small assortment of insults that you recycle, in the majority of what you post, that all sound the same.

I asked you to tell me if Dean had anything to say, other than calling people racist without supporting any of it.


That is what you would have to do, to support your claim that I was "projecting" or some such shit.



You did not do that. For obvious reasons that we both know. That EVERYONE knows.


Calling Dean a race baiting asshole is completely called for.

You don't "know" anything to be a fact. You are assuming.

Here is an actual "fact" for you to contemplate. Dean is not the first, but one of many to refer to #45 as a racist.

And, he(#45) has made some very ignorant statements that could be interpreted as racist, depending on the audience.

Quite a few of you extreme right wingers referred to Obama as a racist as well, without much to substantiate that claim.

Using yout logic, that makes them race baiting assholes as well.

1. I am impressed that you are self aware enough to use qualifiers such as "could be interpreted" and "depending". ON some level, you know it is all fucking bullshit. Good for you. The next step is to admit to yourself that it is wrong to spew shit our of your face hole.


2. Obama supported many racist polices and made many racist statements, to support an accusation of racism.


3. An accusation of racism, that you can support, is not being a race baiting asshole.

As opposed to "YOU" spewing such nonsense. Name ONE so called "racist policy" or "racist statement" that Obama made/supported.

And not YOUR version of it. Post what he ACTUALLY stated/supported from a credible news or fact checked source.

If you are even capable of doing so.

As opposed to posting completely biased, one sided personal opinions.

1. Policy example: His support of Affirmative Action which leads to pro-black and anti-white discrimination, such as has been well documented in Ivy League admissions.


How Diversity Punishes Asians and Poor Whites


" an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points. The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student’s chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550."


(there is more about how POOR whites are especially screwed, but off topic re Obama's racism)





2. Statement example: Obama falsely accusing McCain of using his race to scare white voters. That's is racism.


Aide 'Dollar Bill' Remark Referred to His Race


"Playing the Race Card
Obama's camp initially denied the remark was a reference to Obama's race.

Obama is poised to become the first black man to be the presidential nominee of a major political party when he claims the Democratic nomination on Aug. 28 -- the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

"He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "It is not about race."

But Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, acknowledged on "Good Morning America" Friday that the candidate was referring, at least in part, to his ethnic background.

When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told "GMA" it meant, "He's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American." "

Acknowleding that the "first" black candidate in history would possibly encounter a challenge based on the racial history of America is not racism.

Secondly, college admissions of white students compared to black students do not show a substanstial displacement of white students in overall admissions.

But of course, your belief is likely that even ONE black student admission is likely at the expense of some potential white student.

"Legacy admissions" benefit white applicants far more than non white applicants.

I would be all for a completely equalized playing field, by eliminating legacy admissions as well, if AA was abolished.

https://psmag.com/education/affirmative-action-in-college-admissions

As far as AA in the work force the most rewarded beneficiaries are white females


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAEegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3aiR7zyx_DEmgcGOU9oZ_O
I
https://psmag.com/education/affirmative-action-in-college-admissions

As far as Obama, being "racist" for his "strategist" acknowledging the fact that there were certainly some out there who would not vote for him because " he looked different" is not "racism". It is a fact.
And it was true.

Do you even know what the definition of racism is?

Here are some examples of what could be construed as racism.

Suppose that when Obama ran for office, that he had pointed to a white person at one of HIS rallies and stated "Look at MY white person"? Racist?

Suppose that AFTER he was elected, that he had declared a judge of a different race than himself to be unqualified to preside over a court case involving him? Racist?

Suppose that when he was in office that he had declared immigrants from a predominately white country to be "criminals or rapists"? Racist?

You said that Obama made "MANY racist statements and supported MANY racist policies"

What else besides these couple of things that don't really qualify as "racism"?

 

[katsteve2012]

Thrre have been plenty of statements that "#45" has made that could be construed as "racist", and for good reason.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them, yet freely apply the same so called " vile" term to so many others, is humorously interesting, to say the least.

Sure.

Like referring to both sides of the statue issue as having "some very fine people", explicitly stating that you were NOT referring to the white supremacists and having the media lie to the people that you said "some white supremacists were very fine people."



I acknowledge that the MSM is a bunch of vile race baiting asshole liars.



The a lie is repeated, is not proof it is not a lie.



Page 30 and none of you libs can support the race baiting bullshit of the OP or the thread title.


Hell, it seems that most of you don't understand the CONCEPT of supporting a conclusion.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theory believing self deluded, parrot.



That being said, what news source IS credible in your biased view? Or are there any?

Poor you. Surrounded by a world full of "race baiting assholes"....including every news media publication in the country.

Nothing left to do here except to view you as cheap entertainment


LMAFAO.

ALL you have been able to cite from these sources, is unsupported assumptions on who or what is causing the rise in antisemitic attacks.



You have not given me ONE source that even TRIES to support this assumption.


What you need to support your assumption, is a study where they researched all the reports from the last couple of years, the more the better, and counted the ones that were PROVEN to be white supremacist attacks, as opposed to other antisemites, AND finding that the rise is caused by white supremacists instead of all the other possibilities.

Then prove otherwise. Post something credible besides "your opinion" to debunk what most news sources are saying.

That aside. I am not wasting another second debating with you about "presenting information", because up until now, you've presented none.

I'm not the one making the claim. You libs are.


ANd you can't support it, yet you still insist on making it, because you can smear your enemies with it.

Now you're really getting out there. I do not have any "political enemies." IMO, both parties are questionable as well as crooked. And I am committed to neither.

However, it is a fact that the current administration and it's "leader" are among the most corrupt and hateful in history.

 

[katsteve2012]

This is not even my thread, so there is no reason for me to cut and paste anything for anyones convienience. And this is not "my argument". I simply reported what is regularly in the news.


I am ignoring nothing. Practically every link posted reflects that the rise in anti semitic activity is almost all attributed to white supremacist involvement.

As opposed to you speculating on "who it MIGHT be attributed to" , feel free to produce any source that supports YOUR insistence that there reallly is not an increase in such activity.

I've already posted several, and I even EXCLUDED any information from the SPLC, since you extreme rightwingers insist that they are not credible

Do any of those sources support their claim, with something like say...


Numbers for arrest reports showing that the rise is caused solely by violent self identified white supremacists?




The fact that you see a lot of media talking heads making the same assumption you do, that a rise in reports can only be because of a rise is white supremacists,


is not supporting evidence.

So news agencies from coast to coast are identifying the same trend of incidents, and they are
"ALL making assumptions"?

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements ever made in this forum.

Says the man that cannot find one example of those media sites actually supporting their assumptions with anything other than other people's assumptions.


Calling it "ludicrous" is not a supporting argument, EITHER.

Look up the definition of "Ludicrous", and educate yourself, for a change.

It is within the realm of someone being shown more than enough information to support a trend in behavior and actions, and still being foolish enough to deny that there is truth in what is being reported.

Showing a bunch of talking heads repeating the same unsupported assumption, is NOT "more than enough information".

And not showing anything of any substance as a rebuttal does not invalidate what news agencies all over the country are pointing out.

 

[katsteve2012]

So news agencies from coast to coast are identifying the same trend of incidents, and they are
"ALL making assumptions"?

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements ever made in this forum.

Says the man that cannot find one example of those media sites actually supporting their assumptions with anything other than other people's assumptions.


Calling it "ludicrous" is not a supporting argument, EITHER.

Look up the definition of "Ludicrous", and educate yourself, for a change.

It is within the realm of someone being shown more than enough information to support a trend in behavior and actions, and still being foolish enough to deny that there is truth in what is being reported.

Showing a bunch of talking heads repeating the same unsupported assumption, is NOT "more than enough information".

Just because YOU state that they are all "talking heads", does not make it so.

Post something from any publication that you find that proves anything to the contrary.

The point was not whether they are "talking heads" or not, but that they are all just repeating the same unsupported assumptions.


And what makes that so, is that that is what they are doing as demonstrated by your links showing that.

And how would you know that what is reported is "unsupported"?

That's your opinion based on your "assumption" that the MSM is made up of "race baiting assholes"...lol

 

[Correll]

I asked you to tell me if Dean had anything to say, other than calling people racist without supporting any of it.


That is what you would have to do, to support your claim that I was "projecting" or some such shit.



You did not do that. For obvious reasons that we both know. That EVERYONE knows.


Calling Dean a race baiting asshole is completely called for.

You don't "know" anything to be a fact. You are assuming.

Here is an actual "fact" for you to contemplate. Dean is not the first, but one of many to refer to #45 as a racist.

And, he(#45) has made some very ignorant statements that could be interpreted as racist, depending on the audience.

Quite a few of you extreme right wingers referred to Obama as a racist as well, without much to substantiate that claim.

Using yout logic, that makes them race baiting assholes as well.

1. I am impressed that you are self aware enough to use qualifiers such as "could be interpreted" and "depending". ON some level, you know it is all fucking bullshit. Good for you. The next step is to admit to yourself that it is wrong to spew shit our of your face hole.


2. Obama supported many racist polices and made many racist statements, to support an accusation of racism.


3. An accusation of racism, that you can support, is not being a race baiting asshole.

As opposed to "YOU" spewing such nonsense. Name ONE so called "racist policy" or "racist statement" that Obama made/supported.

And not YOUR version of it. Post what he ACTUALLY stated/supported from a credible news or fact checked source.

If you are even capable of doing so.

As opposed to posting completely biased, one sided personal opinions.

1. Policy example: His support of Affirmative Action which leads to pro-black and anti-white discrimination, such as has been well documented in Ivy League admissions.


How Diversity Punishes Asians and Poor Whites


" an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points. The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student’s chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550."


(there is more about how POOR whites are especially screwed, but off topic re Obama's racism)





2. Statement example: Obama falsely accusing McCain of using his race to scare white voters. That's is racism.


Aide 'Dollar Bill' Remark Referred to His Race


"Playing the Race Card
Obama's camp initially denied the remark was a reference to Obama's race.

Obama is poised to become the first black man to be the presidential nominee of a major political party when he claims the Democratic nomination on Aug. 28 -- the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

"He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "It is not about race."

But Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, acknowledged on "Good Morning America" Friday that the candidate was referring, at least in part, to his ethnic background.

When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told "GMA" it meant, "He's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American." "

Acknowleding that the "first" black candidate in history would possibly encounter a challenge based on the racial history of America is not racism.

Stating that the McCain campaign would use race to frighten voters, was inflaming racial tension for personal gain.

Secondly, college admissions of white students compared to black students do not show a substanstial displacement of white students in overall admissions.

Yes, they do.

But of course, your belief is likely that even ONE black student admission is likely at the expense of some potential white student.

No, I don't. I'v known plenty of highly intelligent black people that could compete on their own without discrimination in their favor.

"Legacy admissions" benefit white applicants far more than non white applicants.

I would be all for a completely equalized playing field, by eliminating legacy admissions as well, if AA was abolished.

I've seen that assumption made. I've not seen a breakdown on who benefits from legacy points.

Regardless, I'm not sure that legacy admissions should be lumped in, into this calculation. Poor whites get fucked enough as it is, without making it worse.

As far as Obama, being "racist" for his "strategist" acknowledging the fact that there were certainly some out there who would not vote for him because " he looked different" is not "racism". It is a fact.

He stated that McCains campaign would fear monger based on race. McCain did not do that. It was wrong of Obama to say that they did, or would.

Here are some examples of what could be construed as racism.

Suppose that when Obama ran for office, that he had pointed to a white person at one of HIS rallies and stated "Look at MY white person"? Racist?

Weird but not racist.

Suppose that AFTER he was elected, that he had declared a judge of a different race than himself to be unqualified to preside over a court case involving him? Racist?

"Unqualified"? Depends on if the judge was unqualified and if the reason Obama said that was the judge being white or asian.

Suppose that when he was in office that he had declared immigrants from a predominately white country to be "criminals or rapists"? Racist?

I doubt Obama would say that. Sounds like someone might be lying about what he said.

You said that Obama made "MANY racist statements and supported MANY racist policies"

What else besides these?

1. Statement:

Obama: 'If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon'


Identify with a criminal based on race, instead of the would be victim of a crime, who was initially reported as "White", that was almost certainly and mostly racism.

2. Policy. Appointing a moron to the Supreme Court based on race.

 

[katsteve2012]

Thrre have been plenty of statements that "#45" has made that could be construed as "racist", and for good reason.

The fact that you refuse to acknowledge them, yet freely apply the same so called " vile" term to so many others, is humorously interesting, to say the least.

Sure.

Like referring to both sides of the statue issue as having "some very fine people", explicitly stating that you were NOT referring to the white supremacists and having the media lie to the people that you said "some white supremacists were very fine people."



I acknowledge that the MSM is a bunch of vile race baiting asshole liars.



The a lie is repeated, is not proof it is not a lie.



Page 30 and none of you libs can support the race baiting bullshit of the OP or the thread title.


Hell, it seems that most of you don't understand the CONCEPT of supporting a conclusion.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theory believing self deluded, parrot.



That being said, what news source IS credible in your biased view? Or are there any?

Poor you. Surrounded by a world full of "race baiting assholes"....including every news media publication in the country.

Nothing left to do here except to view you as cheap entertainment


LMAFAO.

ALL you have been able to cite from these sources, is unsupported assumptions on who or what is causing the rise in antisemitic attacks.



You have not given me ONE source that even TRIES to support this assumption.


What you need to support your assumption, is a study where they researched all the reports from the last couple of years, the more the better, and counted the ones that were PROVEN to be white supremacist attacks, as opposed to other antisemites, AND finding that the rise is caused by white supremacists instead of all the other possibilities.

Then prove otherwise. Post something credible besides "your opinion" to debunk what most news sources are saying.

That aside. I am not wasting another second debating with you about "presenting information", because up until now, you've presented none.

1. You libs are making the claim, it is up to you to support it.

2. You want me to review all the antisemitic attacks over the last couple of years, looking at convicted attackers and analyse trends, in how the perpetrators self identify and how that has changed over the years?

I don't have that ability. I'm not a researcher, nor do I really have the math. I could hire a grad student I guess, but my wife would bitch about the cost.

I don't think your request is reasonable.

I'm asking you to do nothing except show some examples that sustantiate that documented antisemitic incidents in America are in fact NOT primarily attributable to white supremacist activity.

 

[Correll]

Do any of those sources support their claim, with something like say...


Numbers for arrest reports showing that the rise is caused solely by violent self identified white supremacists?




The fact that you see a lot of media talking heads making the same assumption you do, that a rise in reports can only be because of a rise is white supremacists,


is not supporting evidence.

So news agencies from coast to coast are identifying the same trend of incidents, and they are
"ALL making assumptions"?

That has got to be one of the most ludicrous statements ever made in this forum.

Says the man that cannot find one example of those media sites actually supporting their assumptions with anything other than other people's assumptions.


Calling it "ludicrous" is not a supporting argument, EITHER.

Look up the definition of "Ludicrous", and educate yourself, for a change.

It is within the realm of someone being shown more than enough information to support a trend in behavior and actions, and still being foolish enough to deny that there is truth in what is being reported.

Showing a bunch of talking heads repeating the same unsupported assumption, is NOT "more than enough information".

And not showing anything of any substance as a rebuttal does not invalidate what news agencies all over the country are pointing out.

Pointing out that they have not supported their claim is a valid challenge.


It is not a rebuttal as I do not have CONTRARY evidence, but unless they can answer my challenge, their claim is unproven, and an ethical person would stop making it.

 

[MarathonMike]

I asked you to tell me if Dean had anything to say, other than calling people racist without supporting any of it.


That is what you would have to do, to support your claim that I was "projecting" or some such shit.



You did not do that. For obvious reasons that we both know. That EVERYONE knows.


Calling Dean a race baiting asshole is completely called for.

You don't "know" anything to be a fact. You are assuming.

Here is an actual "fact" for you to contemplate. Dean is not the first, but one of many to refer to #45 as a racist.

And, he(#45) has made some very ignorant statements that could be interpreted as racist, depending on the audience.

Quite a few of you extreme right wingers referred to Obama as a racist as well, without much to substantiate that claim.

Using yout logic, that makes them race baiting assholes as well.

1. I am impressed that you are self aware enough to use qualifiers such as "could be interpreted" and "depending". ON some level, you know it is all fucking bullshit. Good for you. The next step is to admit to yourself that it is wrong to spew shit our of your face hole.


2. Obama supported many racist polices and made many racist statements, to support an accusation of racism.


3. An accusation of racism, that you can support, is not being a race baiting asshole.

As opposed to "YOU" spewing such nonsense. Name ONE so called "racist policy" or "racist statement" that Obama made/supported.

And not YOUR version of it. Post what he ACTUALLY stated/supported from a credible news or fact checked source.

If you are even capable of doing so.

As opposed to posting completely biased, one sided personal opinions.

1. Policy example: His support of Affirmative Action which leads to pro-black and anti-white discrimination, such as has been well documented in Ivy League admissions.


How Diversity Punishes Asians and Poor Whites


" an “other things equal basis,” where adjustments are made for a variety of background factors, being Hispanic conferred an admissions boost over being white equivalent to 130 SAT points (out of 1600), while being black rather than white conferred a 310 SAT point advantage. Asians, however, suffered an admissions penalty compared to whites equivalent to 140 SAT points. The box students checked off on the racial question on their application was thus shown to have an extraordinary effect on a student’s chances of gaining admission to the highly competitive private schools in the NSCE database. To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550."


(there is more about how POOR whites are especially screwed, but off topic re Obama's racism)





2. Statement example: Obama falsely accusing McCain of using his race to scare white voters. That's is racism.


Aide 'Dollar Bill' Remark Referred to His Race


"Playing the Race Card
Obama's camp initially denied the remark was a reference to Obama's race.

Obama is poised to become the first black man to be the presidential nominee of a major political party when he claims the Democratic nomination on Aug. 28 -- the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

"He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others," Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said Thursday. "It is not about race."

But Obama's chief strategist, David Axelrod, acknowledged on "Good Morning America" Friday that the candidate was referring, at least in part, to his ethnic background.

When pressed to explain the comment, Axelrod told "GMA" it meant, "He's not from central casting when it comes to candidates for president of the United States. He's new to Washington. Yes, he's African-American." "

Acknowleding that the "first" black candidate in history would possibly encounter a challenge based on the racial history of America is not racism.

Secondly, college admissions of white students compared to black students do not show a substanstial displacement of white students in overall admissions.

But of course, your belief is likely that even ONE black student admission is likely at the expense of some potential white student.

"Legacy admissions" benefit white applicants far more than non white applicants.

I would be all for a completely equalized playing field, by eliminating legacy admissions as well, if AA was abolished.

https://psmag.com/education/affirmative-action-in-college-admissions

As far as AA in the work force the most rewarded beneficiaries are white females


https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAEegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw3aiR7zyx_DEmgcGOU9oZ_O
I
https://psmag.com/education/affirmative-action-in-college-admissions

As far as Obama, being "racist" for his "strategist" acknowledging the fact that there were certainly some out there who would not vote for him because " he looked different" is not "racism". It is a fact.
And it was true.

Do you even know what the definition of racism is?

Here are some examples of what could be construed as racism.

Suppose that when Obama ran for office, that he had pointed to a white person at one of HIS rallies and stated "Look at MY white person"? Racist?

Suppose that AFTER he was elected, that he had declared a judge of a different race than himself to be unqualified to preside over a court case involving him? Racist?

Suppose that when he was in office that he had declared immigrants from a predominately white country to be "criminals or rapists"? Racist?

You said that Obama made "MANY racist statements and supported MANY racist policies"

What else besides these?

Obama started his Racist anti-Police campaign by inexplicably using the power of his office to make a national speech about a nothing police matter involving Black Professor Gates and the Cambridge police force. He admitted during the speech he didn't even know the details but said the police "acted stupidly". But the story ends well with some members of the Cambridge police force fired and Professor Gates getting his own TV show on PBS. Then Obama followed up with his stupid speech on SB-1070 that resulted in economic impacts and layoffs in Arizona. Then Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and the Ferguson riots, his support of #BLM, his support of Colin Kapaernik etc.

None of those subjects merited Presidential attention but Obama made it his business because his goal was to take racial tension back 50 years and was largely successful at that. I haven't even mentioned his disastrous immigration policies and his extraordinary efforts to make Islam great again.

 

[Correll]

Sure.

Like referring to both sides of the statue issue as having "some very fine people", explicitly stating that you were NOT referring to the white supremacists and having the media lie to the people that you said "some white supremacists were very fine people."



I acknowledge that the MSM is a bunch of vile race baiting asshole liars.



The a lie is repeated, is not proof it is not a lie.



Page 30 and none of you libs can support the race baiting bullshit of the OP or the thread title.


Hell, it seems that most of you don't understand the CONCEPT of supporting a conclusion.

Spoken like a true conspiracy theory believing self deluded, parrot.



That being said, what news source IS credible in your biased view? Or are there any?

Poor you. Surrounded by a world full of "race baiting assholes"....including every news media publication in the country.

Nothing left to do here except to view you as cheap entertainment


LMAFAO.

ALL you have been able to cite from these sources, is unsupported assumptions on who or what is causing the rise in antisemitic attacks.



You have not given me ONE source that even TRIES to support this assumption.


What you need to support your assumption, is a study where they researched all the reports from the last couple of years, the more the better, and counted the ones that were PROVEN to be white supremacist attacks, as opposed to other antisemites, AND finding that the rise is caused by white supremacists instead of all the other possibilities.

Then prove otherwise. Post something credible besides "your opinion" to debunk what most news sources are saying.

That aside. I am not wasting another second debating with you about "presenting information", because up until now, you've presented none.

1. You libs are making the claim, it is up to you to support it.

2. You want me to review all the antisemitic attacks over the last couple of years, looking at convicted attackers and analyse trends, in how the perpetrators self identify and how that has changed over the years?

I don't have that ability. I'm not a researcher, nor do I really have the math. I could hire a grad student I guess, but my wife would bitch about the cost.

I don't think your request is reasonable.

I'm asking you to do nothing except show some examples that sustantiate that documented antisemitic incidents in America are in fact NOT primarily attributable to white supremacist activity.

Incredible.


We have been discussing a claimed increase in antisemitic activity. I have pointed out that the assumption that the alleged increase is a result of increased white supremacy is unsupported.


I have made no claim on whether white supremacy is the primary source of antisemitic activity. I have no opinion on that.

It is not relevant.


White supremacy could be the primary factor in antisemitic activity and the rise could still be complete accounted for from false allegations by anti-Trump partisans trying to support the narrative.

We don't know, because we have no real data.


Just unfounded assumptions and accusations.