How come minorities are never thought of as being racist but white people are?

[boedicca]

Well, when minorities start having white slaves - we'll talk about your point.

There are millions of slaves in the world held by Non-White people, you sad hack. And you ignore that because your agenda is just to spew Racist at White People.

About Slavery « Free the Slaves

 

[boedicca]

I'm wondering why it is if you picture someone who is racist you are pretty likely to think of someone who is white? We have been so conditioned to think that only white people can be racist. I know there are a lot of minorities who are racist. It is obvious sometimes and other times it isn't but I know it exist so why don't we ever think that non-whites can be racist?

When your local police dept guns down unarmed minority's just for target practice, and you're ok with it, that makes you a racist.

I call shenanigans. Please link to a credible source with a video of a police department shooting unarmed minorities for target practice - in the United States.

 

[mudwhistle]

Well, when minorities start having white slaves - we'll talk about your point.

Happened already.....beginning with 4000 years ago in Egypt......so start talking.

 

[Contumacious]

Can you find the writings where some politician wanted to end slavery that said someting like 'as a liberal'? I would like to see the historical evidence that this is true.

The liberal/progressive ideology ended slavery as well as the civil rights act and all other social justice efforts in this country... It's why the ideology is call progressive, it institutes change

BULLSHIT


Not all changes are progressive - most of the legislation adopted by "progressives" is regressive"

1= Federal Reserve Act
2- Federal graduated "income" tax
3- the massive regulatory state
4- the civil rights act
5- why is the abolition of slavery a "progressive intervention?


.

Fist off I said "social justice" efforts. Liberal fiscal policy is the opposite as it grows government and increases regulations.

Conservative/traditional ideology is just that, keep the status quo for social policy and keep government out of it. Human rights efforts whether it be for blacks, women, or LGBT were and are instigated by progressives that fight for change towards a more socially just system. Not sure why you debate about that

Is there a Constitutional (1787) proviso which enslaves minorities , women, and LGBT?


The problem is NOT the Constitution or additional stautes , ie , civil, rights act, the problem is racist intolerant "justices".


.By the way the worse intolerant corrupt "justice" was Thurgood Marshall, go fig.

The constitution actually provides equal rights to all. When this right is denied to certain groups by discrimination then these people are being denied their constitutional rights. As a result laws and regulations are passed to help balance the scales and restore their rights. If you truly feel that the civil rights act and allowing blacks the right to vote was regressive then you may just be smoking crack

No, you ignorant fool . You are the one on drugs


Justice Marshall Opposes Hearing Drug Dealer and Incest Appeals


.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, liberals ended it in this country. It's still going on in other countries.
The problem with dropping out. You miss so much.

Can you find the writings where some politician wanted to end slavery that said someting like 'as a liberal'? I would like to see the historical evidence that this is true.

The liberal/progressive ideology ended slavery as well as the civil rights act and all other social justice efforts in this country... It's why the ideology is call progressive, it institutes change

BULLSHIT


Not all changes are progressive - most of the legislation adopted by "progressives" is regressive"

1= Federal Reserve Act
2- Federal graduated "income" tax
3- the massive regulatory state
4- the civil rights act
5- why is the abolition of slavery a "progressive intervention?


.

Fist off I said "social justice" efforts. Liberal fiscal policy is the opposite as it grows government and increases regulations.

Conservative/traditional ideology is just that, keep the status quo for social policy and keep government out of it. Human rights efforts whether it be for blacks, women, or LGBT were and are instigated by progressives that fight for change towards a more socially just system. Not sure why you debate about that

Is there a Constitutional (1787) proviso which enslaves minorities , women, and LGBT?


The problem is NOT the Constitution or additional stautes , ie , civil, rights act, the problem is racist intolerant "justices".


.By the way the worse intolerant corrupt "justice" was Thurgood Marshall, go fig.

No, the problem is this sort of reactionary nonsense and literalist idiocy.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framing Generation that the Supreme Court would determine what the Constitution means, as authorized to do so by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, where the rulings, doctrines, and precedents that predate the Constitution are part of the Constitution, and part of the case law that manifests as the Constitution.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument,' as is the moronic notion of 'corrupt justices.'

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Cultural Left seeks to win most arguments by controlling the semantics of the argument.

Lefties (and the MSM) have decreed that "racism" is intrinsically related to cultural power, so that if a "powerless" group - say American "Negros" - hate "white" people because of their race, it cannot be considered "racism," because without cultural power it is meaningless.

A more rational understanding of "racism" is that it is present whenever "race" is used to justify something that would not otherwise be justifiable. For example, if I choose to hire or promote someone BECAUSE their skin color (race) would add to the diversity of the organization, then I am a racist, by definition. And thus, when an institution makes a commitment to "diversity," then that institution is overtly and obviously promoting racism. They INTEND to treat race as something more than incidental and irrelevant. Without racism, the very concept of "diversity" is nonsense.

Ridiculous straw man fallacy, ridiculous rightwing lies, ridiculous rightwing delusion and idiocy.

Where do you and others on the right come up with this garbage.

 

[OldLady]

My apologies to oldlady

No problem.

 

[Contumacious]

Can you find the writings where some politician wanted to end slavery that said someting like 'as a liberal'? I would like to see the historical evidence that this is true.

The liberal/progressive ideology ended slavery as well as the civil rights act and all other social justice efforts in this country... It's why the ideology is call progressive, it institutes change

BULLSHIT


Not all changes are progressive - most of the legislation adopted by "progressives" is regressive"

1= Federal Reserve Act
2- Federal graduated "income" tax
3- the massive regulatory state
4- the civil rights act
5- why is the abolition of slavery a "progressive intervention?


.

Fist off I said "social justice" efforts. Liberal fiscal policy is the opposite as it grows government and increases regulations.

Conservative/traditional ideology is just that, keep the status quo for social policy and keep government out of it. Human rights efforts whether it be for blacks, women, or LGBT were and are instigated by progressives that fight for change towards a more socially just system. Not sure why you debate about that

Is there a Constitutional (1787) proviso which enslaves minorities , women, and LGBT?


The problem is NOT the Constitution or additional stautes , ie , civil, rights act, the problem is racist intolerant "justices".


.By the way the worse intolerant corrupt "justice" was Thurgood Marshall, go fig.

No, the problem is this sort of reactionary nonsense and literalist idiocy.

It was the original understanding and intent of the Framing Generation that the Supreme Court would determine what the Constitution means, as authorized to do so by the doctrine of judicial review and Articles III and VI of the Constitution.

The Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-American judicial tradition, where the rulings, doctrines, and precedents that predate the Constitution are part of the Constitution, and part of the case law that manifests as the Constitution.

The Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

“But that’s not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant ‘argument,' as is the moronic notion of 'corrupt justices.'

Yo dingle berry


The problem is zombies like you who somehow believe that judges are angels .


Explain why the Dredd Scott ruling was correct :


Roger Brooke Taney (/ˈtɔːni/; March 17, 1777 – October 12, 1864) was the fifth Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, holding that office from 1836 until his death in 1864. He is most remembered for delivering the majority opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), that ruled, among other things, that African-Americans, having been considered inferior at the time the Constitution was drafted, were not part of the original community of citizens and, whether free or slave, could not be considered citizens of the United States, which created an uproar among abolitionists and the free states of the northern U.S. He is also notable as the first Roman Catholic (and first non-Protestant) appointed both to a presidential cabinet (Attorney General under Andrew Jackson) as well as to the Court.

Racist Supreme Court Justice Roger Brooke Taney

.

 

[Desperado]

Because it is taught that only whites can be racist.

Another rightwing lie, and more ignorance from the right.

No one is ‘teaching’ any such thing.

Check out some of US Attorney General Eric Holder rulings in this matter

 

[OldLady]

Because it is taught that only whites can be racist.

Another rightwing lie, and more ignorance from the right.

No one is ‘teaching’ any such thing.

I think their point is that whites can be criticized for being racist, but when non whites are racist against whites, no one criticizes them. Well, they do here, but not so much in polite society, and that is true. It doesn't matter, is the point. I'm afraid the argument is used as a huge deflection, like when someone criticizes Trump and the response is that Clinton did something worse. I don't know the fancy name that for that, but two wrongs don't make a right and one should try to stick to the point.

 

[pwjohn]

I'm wondering why it is if you picture someone who is racist you are pretty likely to think of someone who is white? We have been so conditioned to think that only white people can be racist. I know there are a lot of minorities who are racist. It is obvious sometimes and other times it isn't but I know it exist so why don't we ever think that non-whites can be racist?

When your local police dept guns down unarmed minority's just for target practice, and you're ok with it, that makes you a racist.

I call shenanigans. Please link to a credible source with a video of a police department shooting unarmed minorities for target practice - in the United States.

Verifiable statistics for more than a few local police depts can leave you fairly certain that those "shenanigans" as you call them, are real.

 

[Norman]

I'm wondering why it is if you picture someone who is racist you are pretty likely to think of someone who is white? We have been so conditioned to think that only white people can be racist. I know there are a lot of minorities who are racist. It is obvious sometimes and other times it isn't but I know it exist so why don't we ever think that non-whites can be racist?

When your local police dept guns down unarmed minority's just for target practice, and you're ok with it, that makes you a racist.

I call shenanigans. Please link to a credible source with a video of a police department shooting unarmed minorities for target practice - in the United States.

Verifiable statistics for more than a few local police depts can leave you fairly certain that those "shenanigans" as you call them, are real.

The shenanigans of black people committing way more crime?

 

[pwjohn]

Well, when minorities start having white slaves - we'll talk about your point.

There are millions of slaves in the world held by Non-White people, you sad hack. And you ignore that because your agenda is just to spew Racist at White People.

About Slavery « Free the Slaves

I'm wondering why it is if you picture someone who is racist you are pretty likely to think of someone who is white? We have been so conditioned to think that only white people can be racist. I know there are a lot of minorities who are racist. It is obvious sometimes and other times it isn't but I know it exist so why don't we ever think that non-whites can be racist?

When your local police dept guns down unarmed minority's just for target practice, and you're ok with it, that makes you a racist.

I call shenanigans. Please link to a credible source with a video of a police department shooting unarmed minorities for target practice - in the United States.

Verifiable statistics for more than a few local police depts can leave you fairly certain that those "shenanigans" as you call them, are real.

The shenanigans of black people committing way more crime?

Fair enough. But when you compare local police shooting unarmed people, minority's are always taking it in the ass everytime. Statistically speaking that is. Some might even call it target practice.

 

[Norman]

Well, when minorities start having white slaves - we'll talk about your point.

There are millions of slaves in the world held by Non-White people, you sad hack. And you ignore that because your agenda is just to spew Racist at White People.

About Slavery « Free the Slaves

I'm wondering why it is if you picture someone who is racist you are pretty likely to think of someone who is white? We have been so conditioned to think that only white people can be racist. I know there are a lot of minorities who are racist. It is obvious sometimes and other times it isn't but I know it exist so why don't we ever think that non-whites can be racist?

When your local police dept guns down unarmed minority's just for target practice, and you're ok with it, that makes you a racist.

I call shenanigans. Please link to a credible source with a video of a police department shooting unarmed minorities for target practice - in the United States.

Verifiable statistics for more than a few local police depts can leave you fairly certain that those "shenanigans" as you call them, are real.

The shenanigans of black people committing way more crime?

Fair enough. But when you compare local police shooting unarmed people, minority's are always taking it in the ass everytime. Statistically speaking that is.

Perhaps if they stopped committing outrageous amount of crimes, they could stop taking it in the ass.

 

[pwjohn]

Well, when minorities start having white slaves - we'll talk about your point.

There are millions of slaves in the world held by Non-White people, you sad hack. And you ignore that because your agenda is just to spew Racist at White People.

About Slavery « Free the Slaves

When your local police dept guns down unarmed minority's just for target practice, and you're ok with it, that makes you a racist.

I call shenanigans. Please link to a credible source with a video of a police department shooting unarmed minorities for target practice - in the United States.

Verifiable statistics for more than a few local police depts can leave you fairly certain that those "shenanigans" as you call them, are real.

The shenanigans of black people committing way more crime?

Fair enough. But when you compare local police shooting unarmed people, minority's are always taking it in the ass everytime. Statistically speaking that is.

Perhaps if they stopped committing outrageous amount of crimes, they could stop taking it in the ass.

You must be white.

 

[Slade3200]

BULLSHIT


Not all changes are progressive - most of the legislation adopted by "progressives" is regressive"

1= Federal Reserve Act
2- Federal graduated "income" tax
3- the massive regulatory state
4- the civil rights act
5- why is the abolition of slavery a "progressive intervention?


.

It was republicans who ended slavery, not democrats.

Their ideology is entirely regressive, based on only coercion and power. Might makes right...

They founded the KKK too. And these regressives haven't changed their way.

R and D back then was completely different than R and Ds today. It's not an accurate comparison. Better to uses liberal/progressive vs. conservative/traditional

Yeah, but apparently the term liberal, back then was the same as it is now.

You can't make this stuff up. How do these people manage to get out of bed?

Let's be clear, the modern day REGRESSIVEs (liberals) had nothing to do with it. And had they been alive they would have opposed it "but... who would pick the cotton for us to freeload?"

Illegal immigrants. Duh

What about them?

Are you saying that someone entering the country illegally is a slave? That would be some more truly retard grade garbage from you.

No I was just mocking you... Take a joke

 

[Slade3200]

The liberal/progressive ideology ended slavery as well as the civil rights act and all other social justice efforts in this country... It's why the ideology is call progressive, it institutes change

BULLSHIT


Not all changes are progressive - most of the legislation adopted by "progressives" is regressive"

1= Federal Reserve Act
2- Federal graduated "income" tax
3- the massive regulatory state
4- the civil rights act
5- why is the abolition of slavery a "progressive intervention?


.

Fist off I said "social justice" efforts. Liberal fiscal policy is the opposite as it grows government and increases regulations.

Conservative/traditional ideology is just that, keep the status quo for social policy and keep government out of it. Human rights efforts whether it be for blacks, women, or LGBT were and are instigated by progressives that fight for change towards a more socially just system. Not sure why you debate about that

Is there a Constitutional (1787) proviso which enslaves minorities , women, and LGBT?


The problem is NOT the Constitution or additional stautes , ie , civil, rights act, the problem is racist intolerant "justices".


.By the way the worse intolerant corrupt "justice" was Thurgood Marshall, go fig.

The constitution actually provides equal rights to all. When this right is denied to certain groups by discrimination then these people are being denied their constitutional rights. As a result laws and regulations are passed to help balance the scales and restore their rights. If you truly feel that the civil rights act and allowing blacks the right to vote was regressive then you may just be smoking crack

So, if the supreme law of the land is ignored by the scumbags what makes you think that they will honored the new laws?

Did you forget that the motherfuckers made themselves IMMUNE from lawsuits in the 1960's? WE THE PEOPLE can not sue them.

But Congress can still impeach and try. So guess which entity's powers are now UNlimited.


.


.

What are you talking about? And how does that apply to civil rights?

 

[Norman]

Well, when minorities start having white slaves - we'll talk about your point.

There are millions of slaves in the world held by Non-White people, you sad hack. And you ignore that because your agenda is just to spew Racist at White People.

About Slavery « Free the Slaves

I call shenanigans. Please link to a credible source with a video of a police department shooting unarmed minorities for target practice - in the United States.

Verifiable statistics for more than a few local police depts can leave you fairly certain that those "shenanigans" as you call them, are real.

The shenanigans of black people committing way more crime?

Fair enough. But when you compare local police shooting unarmed people, minority's are always taking it in the ass everytime. Statistically speaking that is.

Perhaps if they stopped committing outrageous amount of crimes, they could stop taking it in the ass.

You must be white.

Are you saying only white people can be aware of the facts?

That is a very, very racist thing to say.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well, when minorities start having white slaves - we'll talk about your point.

Black Egyptians owned Jewish slaves. The Chinese owned slaves of many different nationalities. There are dozens of other examples.

Your attempt at deflection does not discount the fact that racists exist in every color and ethnicity.

Were Egyptians the minority?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The irony is that LBJ was an abject racist and was more concerned with locking up the black vote than anything else. One of LBJ's favorite words was "******".

lol, you want to condemn LBJ for making major advances in civil rights for black Americans because it meant blacks might vote Democrat?

jesus, who would blacks vote for if one party is working on their behalf, and the other, the party of Barry Goldwater is fighting it every step of the way?