You know, I thought you wanted a serious civil discussion. Now I see you aren't capable of conducting yourself in such a manner.
If you are disliked because of your race...
- Thread starter dfens
- Start date
You know, I thought you wanted a serious civil discussion. Now I see you aren't capable of conducting yourself in such a manner.
I have a feeling you're wasting your breath. It's like the current deal with Muslims and Trump's efforts to keep out radicals and potential terrorist threats. 9 / 11, the San Bernadino shooters, Omar Mateen, Nidal Hasan, and even possibly the nutjob in Las Vegas, acts of terrorists - Muslims and their sympathizers, but only the paranoid have a problem with it.
By your reasoning, the republic established here was destroyed many years ago.
What you seem unwilling to accept is that nations change over time. In the US, that includes moving away from a nation in which power is almost exclusively in the hands of white men. Are you saying you think the nation should go back to that dynamic?
As Unkotare pointed out, Dred Scott is widely considered one of the worst decisions ever made by the USSC, so quoting from it is unlikely to sway anyone's thinking.
Oh, and I wonder, do you feel qualified to speak about how every nation in the world feels about the US being for the preservation, defense, and advancement of whites?
Your reading skills leave a lot to be desired - unless you were deliberately trying to misrepresent what I said.
We're not talking about what everybody in the world thinks. Our discussion is about the way Americans view the race issue compared to what we accept from the rest of the world. Since people in foreign countries don't usually vote in our elections, I don't care what they think.
Sure societies change over time and I've pointed out the elimination of the Confederate flag, assaults on the statues, monuments, and memorials of whites in America. I've made reference to the plans to take white peoples face off the currency and replace it with black people. Now, let me add to that:
The plans to destroy our Republic via civil rights was financed by liberals. These are the same people who gave us forced busing, affirmative action, racial quotas, and preferential hiring schemes. Of course, these are the same people that want to eliminate public displays of the Ten Commandments and nativity scenes. Those liberals are the same people with a problem with private property Rights and the Second Amendment.
At every juncture we see a subtle progression of eliminating the white people, their culture and the principles upon which this nation was founded. Now, you can say all you want with regards to Dred Scott v Sanford, but that decision was never overturned. It was presumed to be moot due to the illegally ratified 14th Amendment.
Meanwhile, since 1857 there has been this constant assault against every facet of our nation. The things that made us great is what the multiculturalists seek to destroy. The genocide against the whites; the disenfranchisement of the whites; the political propaganda that has left them rejecting their God in favor of drugs, booze, and tattoos all tell me the change isn't all that positive. There are more Americans in prison than any nation in the world. Approximately 80 percent of the global opioid supply is consumed in the United States. There are close to 2 million Americans using heroin.
While whites have abandoned the things that made America great, the blacks have shown they cannot acclimate to the white culture. Chicago, for instance, is controlled from the city level to the federal level by blacks. In Chicago, over 70 percent of the violent criminal offenders are black. In Georgia, over half of all the violent crime comes out of a mere five precincts - all of them predominantly black.
By contrast, the safest town in Georgia - possibly America is Kennesaw, Georgia... which is predominantly white AND it is required, by law, that each home have a gun in it.
On and on I could go, but the bottom line is, there is subtle effort to commit genocide against whites. It is not unethical, immoral, illegal, nor in any way wrong for the whites to become aware of the status quo and challenge it.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
- May 4, 2009
- 22,484
- 5,356
You brought up other nations. If you don't care what they think, I don't know why you'd bring up what they think. Specifically, you claimed that this is the only country where being founded for whites is presented as a bad thing.
If you consider the US to be based on white men; if you think that allowing non-whites to be citizens is destroying the republic; if you think that things not part of the founding, such as women being allowed to vote, constitute destroying the republic; then the republic was destroyed long ago. At this point, you should be arguing for restoration of the republic as you see it, not talking about attempts to destroy what no longer exists.
I see no genocide against whites. Whites still make up the majority of the country, and even if predictions about racial make-up are true, whites will remain the largest racial group in the US for a long time to come.
Rejecting their god in favor of drugs, booze, and tattoos?
Not only do plenty of believers in god partake of drugs, booze, and have tattoos, I question how many people have decided to reject god in favor of those things. What odd reasoning would make you think those things do not coexist?Some of the things that you think made this nation great, a majority of the nation apparently disagree with you about.
That law is symbolic. It is not enforced. People do not have their homes searched, they are not charged with crimes, for not owning a firearm. In fact, the way it is written, anyone who doesn't want a firearm in their home is exempt from the law. And from what I've read, Kennesaw was not a high-crime area before the law. Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'
Further, from what I've been able to gather, Kennsaw actually has a lower % of whites in the population than the country has overall (although slightly more than GA has overall). Kennesaw, GA Population and Races - USA.com™
According to those numbers, Kennesaw was 62.81% white, whereas the country was 73.81% white, as of 2014.
It appears everything you said about Kennesaw is false, other than it perhaps being the safest town in GA. Of course, even there, I have seen other towns in Georgia listed as safer: Here Are The 10 Safest And Most Peaceful Places To Live In Georgia
So a small town with a symbolic law that is never enforced, with a white population significantly less than that of the country as a whole, which did not have the lowest crime rate as of 2015. What was your point?
This seems like a ridiculously ineffective genocide, where whites continue to be the majority race in the country for at least decades to come. Perhaps you are really upset that whites don't have as much power over minorities as in the past?
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 129,822
- 24,909
No serious discussion begins with "It cannot disputed by any honest person..."
Some facts are indisputable. How far do you want me to go into it before you acknowledge what the purpose of the founding of America was about?
You brought up other nations. If you don't care what they think, I don't know why you'd bring up what they think. Specifically, you claimed that this is the only country where being founded for whites is presented as a bad thing.
If you consider the US to be based on white men; if you think that allowing non-whites to be citizens is destroying the republic; if you think that things not part of the founding, such as women being allowed to vote, constitute destroying the republic; then the republic was destroyed long ago. At this point, you should be arguing for restoration of the republic as you see it, not talking about attempts to destroy what no longer exists.
I see no genocide against whites. Whites still make up the majority of the country, and even if predictions about racial make-up are true, whites will remain the largest racial group in the US for a long time to come.
Rejecting their god in favor of drugs, booze, and tattoos?
Some of the things that you think made this nation great, a majority of the nation apparently disagree with you about.
That law is symbolic. It is not enforced. People do not have their homes searched, they are not charged with crimes, for not owning a firearm. In fact, the way it is written, anyone who doesn't want a firearm in their home is exempt from the law. And from what I've read, Kennesaw was not a high-crime area before the law. Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'
Further, from what I've been able to gather, Kennsaw actually has a lower % of whites in the population than the country has overall (although slightly more than GA has overall). Kennesaw, GA Population and Races - USA.com™
According to those numbers, Kennesaw was 62.81% white, whereas the country was 73.81% white, as of 2014.
It appears everything you said about Kennesaw is false, other than it perhaps being the safest town in GA. Of course, even there, I have seen other towns in Georgia listed as safer: Here Are The 10 Safest And Most Peaceful Places To Live In Georgia
So a small town with a symbolic law that is never enforced, with a white population significantly less than that of the country as a whole, which did not have the lowest crime rate as of 2015. What was your point?
This seems like a ridiculously ineffective genocide, where whites continue to be the majority race in the country for at least decades to come. Perhaps you are really upset that whites don't have as much power over minorities as in the past?
Get a life, dude. It is not necessary to quote every freaking line I post. It's boring and leads to posts that nobody will read.
I never said a damn thing about how other nations feel about the United States. I said it's okay that other nations can be built on the same principles that the U.S. is (though for different people) and it's all good... That means Americans will accept it, but find fault with it when the people of our Constitution were white. Now give it a rest.
Ever since we've allowed blacks to become citizens, there has been divisiveness, anger, and chaos. Each generation it gets worse and every time the blacks feel wronged, the whites bend over backward, kiss their ass, compromise a little more and lose ground, while the over-all objective is to push the white people into oblivion.
Early in this nation's history, only land owners were allowed the privilege of voting. Today, the masses can vote themselves the riches of the producers and families can be turned against each other with democracy.
Your claim is that a lot of people disagree with me. Well Duh... That is why Trump's message resonated so well. America was founded as a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. And, ever since the people began worshipping the Golden Calf, the masses have been proven to be wrong.
Your misrepresentations of what you think were my weakest point do not change the bottom line. So, since you have an issue with either interpretation or honesty, if you have a point, make it. Just because YOU can't see something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. You need to talk to the guy who has been impacted by this subtle genocide. But try to marginalize their lives and then get back to me.
Just for chits and giggles, Kennesaw is 63 percent white, roughly 14 percent are Other Than Black and fewer that a fourth of the residents are black.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
- May 4, 2009
- 22,484
- 5,356
You brought up other nations. If you don't care what they think, I don't know why you'd bring up what they think. Specifically, you claimed that this is the only country where being founded for whites is presented as a bad thing.
If you consider the US to be based on white men; if you think that allowing non-whites to be citizens is destroying the republic; if you think that things not part of the founding, such as women being allowed to vote, constitute destroying the republic; then the republic was destroyed long ago. At this point, you should be arguing for restoration of the republic as you see it, not talking about attempts to destroy what no longer exists.
I see no genocide against whites. Whites still make up the majority of the country, and even if predictions about racial make-up are true, whites will remain the largest racial group in the US for a long time to come.
Rejecting their god in favor of drugs, booze, and tattoos?
Some of the things that you think made this nation great, a majority of the nation apparently disagree with you about.
That law is symbolic. It is not enforced. People do not have their homes searched, they are not charged with crimes, for not owning a firearm. In fact, the way it is written, anyone who doesn't want a firearm in their home is exempt from the law. And from what I've read, Kennesaw was not a high-crime area before the law. Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'
Further, from what I've been able to gather, Kennsaw actually has a lower % of whites in the population than the country has overall (although slightly more than GA has overall). Kennesaw, GA Population and Races - USA.com™
According to those numbers, Kennesaw was 62.81% white, whereas the country was 73.81% white, as of 2014.
It appears everything you said about Kennesaw is false, other than it perhaps being the safest town in GA. Of course, even there, I have seen other towns in Georgia listed as safer: Here Are The 10 Safest And Most Peaceful Places To Live In Georgia
So a small town with a symbolic law that is never enforced, with a white population significantly less than that of the country as a whole, which did not have the lowest crime rate as of 2015. What was your point?
This seems like a ridiculously ineffective genocide, where whites continue to be the majority race in the country for at least decades to come. Perhaps you are really upset that whites don't have as much power over minorities as in the past?
Get a life, dude. It is not necessary to quote every freaking line I post. It's boring and leads to posts that nobody will read.
I never said a damn thing about how other nations feel about the United States. I said it's okay that other nations can be built on the same principles that the U.S. is (though for different people) and it's all good... That means Americans will accept it, but find fault with it when the people of our Constitution were white. Now give it a rest.
Ever since we've allowed blacks to become citizens, there has been divisiveness, anger, and chaos. Each generation it gets worse and every time the blacks feel wronged, the whites bend over backward, kiss their ass, compromise a little more and lose ground, while the over-all objective is to push the white people into oblivion.
Early in this nation's history, only land owners were allowed the privilege of voting. Today, the masses can vote themselves the riches of the producers and families can be turned against each other with democracy.
Your claim is that a lot of people disagree with me. Well Duh... That is why Trump's message resonated so well. America was founded as a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. And, ever since the people began worshipping the Golden Calf, the masses have been proven to be wrong.
Your misrepresentations of what you think were my weakest point do not change the bottom line. So, since you have an issue with either interpretation or honesty, if you have a point, make it. Just because YOU can't see something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. You need to talk to the guy who has been impacted by this subtle genocide. But try to marginalize their lives and then get back to me.
Just for chits and giggles, Kennesaw is 63 percent white, roughly 14 percent are Other Than Black and fewer that a fourth of the residents are black.
Using the multi-quote function means I don't have a life?
What other nations are built upon the same principles you think the US is built on, and where do you get your knowledge of who accepts that and who does not?
Do you honestly believe there was no divisiveness, anger, or chaos before blacks became citizens?
The overall objective of who is to "push the white people into oblivion"? And why are you worried, since those people seem to be pretty bad at accomplishing the objective, as whites continue to be the majority race in this country and are expected to remain so for the foreseeable future?
Early in this nation's history, only men were allowed the privilege of voting. Do you want to go back to that, as well?
The US is still a constitutional republic. It is most certainly not a direct democracy. The US is, however, a representative democracy. If you believe otherwise, you are confused as to what those terms mean.
What is the bottom line as you see it? Of course just because I don't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.....by the same token, just because you think you see something does not mean it does exist. You keep talking about the destruction of the white race (genocide) and yet, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, whites still make up a majority of the nation, and are expected to continue to do so for the next few decades, at least. Even when whites are not the majority, they are still expected to be the largest single racial group in the country. If this is an intentional genocide, it's a damned long-term one!
I do have an issue with your interpretation and seeming lack of honesty.
My point is that you are making claims without compelling evidence (i.e. that there is an intentional white genocide occurring), that you are making false claims (that Kennesaw is the safest town in GA, that it is required by law that each home in the town have a gun in it) in an attempt to bolster your largely foolish ideas, that you are making false implications in the same way (mentioning that Kennesaw is majority white, which ignores the fact that most towns in the nation are likely to be majority white because the population of the country as a whole is majority white), that you are trying to find a simple answer to complex questions, and that you sound like a fairly typical racial supremacist: short on facts and doing mental gymnastics to draw conclusions that fit your narrative.
You brought up other nations. If you don't care what they think, I don't know why you'd bring up what they think. Specifically, you claimed that this is the only country where being founded for whites is presented as a bad thing.
If you consider the US to be based on white men; if you think that allowing non-whites to be citizens is destroying the republic; if you think that things not part of the founding, such as women being allowed to vote, constitute destroying the republic; then the republic was destroyed long ago. At this point, you should be arguing for restoration of the republic as you see it, not talking about attempts to destroy what no longer exists.
I see no genocide against whites. Whites still make up the majority of the country, and even if predictions about racial make-up are true, whites will remain the largest racial group in the US for a long time to come.
Rejecting their god in favor of drugs, booze, and tattoos?
Some of the things that you think made this nation great, a majority of the nation apparently disagree with you about.
That law is symbolic. It is not enforced. People do not have their homes searched, they are not charged with crimes, for not owning a firearm. In fact, the way it is written, anyone who doesn't want a firearm in their home is exempt from the law. And from what I've read, Kennesaw was not a high-crime area before the law. Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'
Further, from what I've been able to gather, Kennsaw actually has a lower % of whites in the population than the country has overall (although slightly more than GA has overall). Kennesaw, GA Population and Races - USA.com™
According to those numbers, Kennesaw was 62.81% white, whereas the country was 73.81% white, as of 2014.
It appears everything you said about Kennesaw is false, other than it perhaps being the safest town in GA. Of course, even there, I have seen other towns in Georgia listed as safer: Here Are The 10 Safest And Most Peaceful Places To Live In Georgia
So a small town with a symbolic law that is never enforced, with a white population significantly less than that of the country as a whole, which did not have the lowest crime rate as of 2015. What was your point?
This seems like a ridiculously ineffective genocide, where whites continue to be the majority race in the country for at least decades to come. Perhaps you are really upset that whites don't have as much power over minorities as in the past?
Get a life, dude. It is not necessary to quote every freaking line I post. It's boring and leads to posts that nobody will read.
I never said a damn thing about how other nations feel about the United States. I said it's okay that other nations can be built on the same principles that the U.S. is (though for different people) and it's all good... That means Americans will accept it, but find fault with it when the people of our Constitution were white. Now give it a rest.
Ever since we've allowed blacks to become citizens, there has been divisiveness, anger, and chaos. Each generation it gets worse and every time the blacks feel wronged, the whites bend over backward, kiss their ass, compromise a little more and lose ground, while the over-all objective is to push the white people into oblivion.
Early in this nation's history, only land owners were allowed the privilege of voting. Today, the masses can vote themselves the riches of the producers and families can be turned against each other with democracy.
Your claim is that a lot of people disagree with me. Well Duh... That is why Trump's message resonated so well. America was founded as a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. And, ever since the people began worshipping the Golden Calf, the masses have been proven to be wrong.
Your misrepresentations of what you think were my weakest point do not change the bottom line. So, since you have an issue with either interpretation or honesty, if you have a point, make it. Just because YOU can't see something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. You need to talk to the guy who has been impacted by this subtle genocide. But try to marginalize their lives and then get back to me.
Just for chits and giggles, Kennesaw is 63 percent white, roughly 14 percent are Other Than Black and fewer that a fourth of the residents are black.
Using the multi-quote function means I don't have a life?
What other nations are built upon the same principles you think the US is built on, and where do you get your knowledge of who accepts that and who does not?
Do you honestly believe there was no divisiveness, anger, or chaos before blacks became citizens?
The overall objective of who is to "push the white people into oblivion"? And why are you worried, since those people seem to be pretty bad at accomplishing the objective, as whites continue to be the majority race in this country and are expected to remain so for the foreseeable future?
Early in this nation's history, only men were allowed the privilege of voting. Do you want to go back to that, as well?
The US is still a constitutional republic. It is most certainly not a direct democracy. The US is, however, a representative democracy. If you believe otherwise, you are confused as to what those terms mean.
What is the bottom line as you see it? Of course just because I don't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.....by the same token, just because you think you see something does not mean it does exist. You keep talking about the destruction of the white race (genocide) and yet, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, whites still make up a majority of the nation, and are expected to continue to do so for the next few decades, at least. Even when whites are not the majority, they are still expected to be the largest single racial group in the country. If this is an intentional genocide, it's a damned long-term one!
I do have an issue with your interpretation and seeming lack of honesty.
When you feel the need to quote every single paragraph and sentence, it does say you don't have a life.
If you would like to discuss A paragraph from my earlier posting, feel free to ask. Nobody is going to read walls of text. I can do the point / counterpoint thing all day long, but since you have problems with reading comprehension, honesty or something above my ability to diagnose, we need to discuss my responses one at a time. Otherwise NOBODY will read fifty paragraphs every response - and I won't answer you. It's you trolling and unable to overcome the plain and simple facts. Dude, I didn't read your post once it exceeded a dozen paragraphs. I limit all my responses to ten unless being asked to go more.
The whites are under attack on a daily basis. IF you were honest, you will remember that I tied this nation's posterity to a host of things, the two mentionables were race and culture (which became pretty much one and the same in our laws.)
The next one that was inferred was our religious views which shaped our customs, laws, and national sense of right and wrong (our values as a people.) You cannot attack one without the other.
There is much more to the story than the hue of the skin color of the majority... and you're most likely as wrong there as anything else.
Finally, quit lying about Kennesaw or I won't reply at all. Drop it if you want any replies from me. You have lied about what I said so, we won't be pursuing it any longer.
Safest city in America… City of Kennesaw, Georgia, USA
Last edited:
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
- May 4, 2009
- 22,484
- 5,356
You brought up other nations. If you don't care what they think, I don't know why you'd bring up what they think. Specifically, you claimed that this is the only country where being founded for whites is presented as a bad thing.
If you consider the US to be based on white men; if you think that allowing non-whites to be citizens is destroying the republic; if you think that things not part of the founding, such as women being allowed to vote, constitute destroying the republic; then the republic was destroyed long ago. At this point, you should be arguing for restoration of the republic as you see it, not talking about attempts to destroy what no longer exists.
I see no genocide against whites. Whites still make up the majority of the country, and even if predictions about racial make-up are true, whites will remain the largest racial group in the US for a long time to come.
Rejecting their god in favor of drugs, booze, and tattoos?
Some of the things that you think made this nation great, a majority of the nation apparently disagree with you about.
That law is symbolic. It is not enforced. People do not have their homes searched, they are not charged with crimes, for not owning a firearm. In fact, the way it is written, anyone who doesn't want a firearm in their home is exempt from the law. And from what I've read, Kennesaw was not a high-crime area before the law. Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'
Further, from what I've been able to gather, Kennsaw actually has a lower % of whites in the population than the country has overall (although slightly more than GA has overall). Kennesaw, GA Population and Races - USA.com™
According to those numbers, Kennesaw was 62.81% white, whereas the country was 73.81% white, as of 2014.
It appears everything you said about Kennesaw is false, other than it perhaps being the safest town in GA. Of course, even there, I have seen other towns in Georgia listed as safer: Here Are The 10 Safest And Most Peaceful Places To Live In Georgia
So a small town with a symbolic law that is never enforced, with a white population significantly less than that of the country as a whole, which did not have the lowest crime rate as of 2015. What was your point?
This seems like a ridiculously ineffective genocide, where whites continue to be the majority race in the country for at least decades to come. Perhaps you are really upset that whites don't have as much power over minorities as in the past?
Get a life, dude. It is not necessary to quote every freaking line I post. It's boring and leads to posts that nobody will read.
I never said a damn thing about how other nations feel about the United States. I said it's okay that other nations can be built on the same principles that the U.S. is (though for different people) and it's all good... That means Americans will accept it, but find fault with it when the people of our Constitution were white. Now give it a rest.
Ever since we've allowed blacks to become citizens, there has been divisiveness, anger, and chaos. Each generation it gets worse and every time the blacks feel wronged, the whites bend over backward, kiss their ass, compromise a little more and lose ground, while the over-all objective is to push the white people into oblivion.
Early in this nation's history, only land owners were allowed the privilege of voting. Today, the masses can vote themselves the riches of the producers and families can be turned against each other with democracy.
Your claim is that a lot of people disagree with me. Well Duh... That is why Trump's message resonated so well. America was founded as a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. And, ever since the people began worshipping the Golden Calf, the masses have been proven to be wrong.
Your misrepresentations of what you think were my weakest point do not change the bottom line. So, since you have an issue with either interpretation or honesty, if you have a point, make it. Just because YOU can't see something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. You need to talk to the guy who has been impacted by this subtle genocide. But try to marginalize their lives and then get back to me.
Just for chits and giggles, Kennesaw is 63 percent white, roughly 14 percent are Other Than Black and fewer that a fourth of the residents are black.
Using the multi-quote function means I don't have a life?
What other nations are built upon the same principles you think the US is built on, and where do you get your knowledge of who accepts that and who does not?
Do you honestly believe there was no divisiveness, anger, or chaos before blacks became citizens?
The overall objective of who is to "push the white people into oblivion"? And why are you worried, since those people seem to be pretty bad at accomplishing the objective, as whites continue to be the majority race in this country and are expected to remain so for the foreseeable future?
Early in this nation's history, only men were allowed the privilege of voting. Do you want to go back to that, as well?
The US is still a constitutional republic. It is most certainly not a direct democracy. The US is, however, a representative democracy. If you believe otherwise, you are confused as to what those terms mean.
What is the bottom line as you see it? Of course just because I don't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.....by the same token, just because you think you see something does not mean it does exist. You keep talking about the destruction of the white race (genocide) and yet, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, whites still make up a majority of the nation, and are expected to continue to do so for the next few decades, at least. Even when whites are not the majority, they are still expected to be the largest single racial group in the country. If this is an intentional genocide, it's a damned long-term one!
I do have an issue with your interpretation and seeming lack of honesty.
When you feel the need to quote every single paragraph and sentence, it does say you don't have a life.
If you would like to discuss A paragraph from my earlier posting, feel free to ask. Nobody is going to read walls of text. I can do the point / counterpoint thing all day long, but since you have problems with reading comprehension, honesty or something above my ability to diagnose, we need to discuss my responses one at a time. Otherwise NOBODY will read fifty paragraphs every response - and I won't answer you. It's you trolling and unable to overcome the plain and simple facts. Dude, I didn't read your post once it exceeded a dozen paragraphs. I limit all my responses to ten unless being asked to go more.
The whites are under attack on a daily basis. IF you were honest, you will remember that I tied this nation's posterity to a host of things, the two mentionables were race and culture (which became pretty much one and the same in our laws.)
The next one that was inferred was our religious views which shaped our customs, laws, and national sense of right and wrong (our values as a people.) You cannot attack one without the other.
There is much more to the story than the hue of the skin color of the majority... and you're most likely as wrong there as anything else.
Finally, quit lying about Kennesaw or I won't reply at all. Drop it if you want any replies from me. You have lied about what I said so, we won't be pursuing it any longer.
Considering the post I used the multi-quote function in only had 10 paragraphs written by me, I wonder what it is you are looking at? Are you, for some reason, unhappy about having me reply to specific portions of your posts? Your problem with this is odd but funny. It's especially rich when you say "we need to discuss my responses one at a time" but are upset when I use the function specifically designed to break up the quoted post in order to reply to each point one at a time.
My response was not 50 paragraphs, nor was it a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps you have counting issues, but it was only 10 paragraphs of my own. Any other paragraphs were quotes from you. You have an odd definition of trolling...and "plan and simple facts," for that matter.
Please, feel free to point out a single lie about Kennesaw. Unlike you, I actually provided evidence for every claim I made regarding Kennesaw; that it is not the safest town in GA (although I am happy to admit that depends on how you define safe in this context), that the law does not actually require every home to have a gun in it, and I pointed out that you bringing up Kennesaw being majority white is fairly meaningless, as most towns will be majority white in this country based on racial demographics, and that Kennesaw actually has a lower percentage of whites than the country as a whole does. You brought Kennesaw into the discussion, now you're upset that I'm pointing out where you were wrong in your statements? I have no sympathy. You won't reply to me unless I only discuss the things you want me to? Don't reply then.
You still have not shown how whites are experiencing genocide, unless you perhaps define genocide as a decline in the rate of population growth. I don't see how that qualifies as an intentional genocide, can you explain that? Or perhaps just give the definition of genocide you are operating under?
Is this genocide also happening to Christians? Maybe only to white Christians? Maybe only to white Christians who are part of a particular culture? You have made claims, provided little to no evidence to back those claims, and seem to be upset that I am refuting or disagreeing with those claims.
You brought up other nations. If you don't care what they think, I don't know why you'd bring up what they think. Specifically, you claimed that this is the only country where being founded for whites is presented as a bad thing.
If you consider the US to be based on white men; if you think that allowing non-whites to be citizens is destroying the republic; if you think that things not part of the founding, such as women being allowed to vote, constitute destroying the republic; then the republic was destroyed long ago. At this point, you should be arguing for restoration of the republic as you see it, not talking about attempts to destroy what no longer exists.
I see no genocide against whites. Whites still make up the majority of the country, and even if predictions about racial make-up are true, whites will remain the largest racial group in the US for a long time to come.
Rejecting their god in favor of drugs, booze, and tattoos?
Some of the things that you think made this nation great, a majority of the nation apparently disagree with you about.
That law is symbolic. It is not enforced. People do not have their homes searched, they are not charged with crimes, for not owning a firearm. In fact, the way it is written, anyone who doesn't want a firearm in their home is exempt from the law. And from what I've read, Kennesaw was not a high-crime area before the law. Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'
Further, from what I've been able to gather, Kennsaw actually has a lower % of whites in the population than the country has overall (although slightly more than GA has overall). Kennesaw, GA Population and Races - USA.com™
According to those numbers, Kennesaw was 62.81% white, whereas the country was 73.81% white, as of 2014.
It appears everything you said about Kennesaw is false, other than it perhaps being the safest town in GA. Of course, even there, I have seen other towns in Georgia listed as safer: Here Are The 10 Safest And Most Peaceful Places To Live In Georgia
So a small town with a symbolic law that is never enforced, with a white population significantly less than that of the country as a whole, which did not have the lowest crime rate as of 2015. What was your point?
This seems like a ridiculously ineffective genocide, where whites continue to be the majority race in the country for at least decades to come. Perhaps you are really upset that whites don't have as much power over minorities as in the past?
Get a life, dude. It is not necessary to quote every freaking line I post. It's boring and leads to posts that nobody will read.
I never said a damn thing about how other nations feel about the United States. I said it's okay that other nations can be built on the same principles that the U.S. is (though for different people) and it's all good... That means Americans will accept it, but find fault with it when the people of our Constitution were white. Now give it a rest.
Ever since we've allowed blacks to become citizens, there has been divisiveness, anger, and chaos. Each generation it gets worse and every time the blacks feel wronged, the whites bend over backward, kiss their ass, compromise a little more and lose ground, while the over-all objective is to push the white people into oblivion.
Early in this nation's history, only land owners were allowed the privilege of voting. Today, the masses can vote themselves the riches of the producers and families can be turned against each other with democracy.
Your claim is that a lot of people disagree with me. Well Duh... That is why Trump's message resonated so well. America was founded as a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. And, ever since the people began worshipping the Golden Calf, the masses have been proven to be wrong.
Your misrepresentations of what you think were my weakest point do not change the bottom line. So, since you have an issue with either interpretation or honesty, if you have a point, make it. Just because YOU can't see something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. You need to talk to the guy who has been impacted by this subtle genocide. But try to marginalize their lives and then get back to me.
Just for chits and giggles, Kennesaw is 63 percent white, roughly 14 percent are Other Than Black and fewer that a fourth of the residents are black.
Using the multi-quote function means I don't have a life?
What other nations are built upon the same principles you think the US is built on, and where do you get your knowledge of who accepts that and who does not?
Do you honestly believe there was no divisiveness, anger, or chaos before blacks became citizens?
The overall objective of who is to "push the white people into oblivion"? And why are you worried, since those people seem to be pretty bad at accomplishing the objective, as whites continue to be the majority race in this country and are expected to remain so for the foreseeable future?
Early in this nation's history, only men were allowed the privilege of voting. Do you want to go back to that, as well?
The US is still a constitutional republic. It is most certainly not a direct democracy. The US is, however, a representative democracy. If you believe otherwise, you are confused as to what those terms mean.
What is the bottom line as you see it? Of course just because I don't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.....by the same token, just because you think you see something does not mean it does exist. You keep talking about the destruction of the white race (genocide) and yet, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, whites still make up a majority of the nation, and are expected to continue to do so for the next few decades, at least. Even when whites are not the majority, they are still expected to be the largest single racial group in the country. If this is an intentional genocide, it's a damned long-term one!
I do have an issue with your interpretation and seeming lack of honesty.
When you feel the need to quote every single paragraph and sentence, it does say you don't have a life.
If you would like to discuss A paragraph from my earlier posting, feel free to ask. Nobody is going to read walls of text. I can do the point / counterpoint thing all day long, but since you have problems with reading comprehension, honesty or something above my ability to diagnose, we need to discuss my responses one at a time. Otherwise NOBODY will read fifty paragraphs every response - and I won't answer you. It's you trolling and unable to overcome the plain and simple facts. Dude, I didn't read your post once it exceeded a dozen paragraphs. I limit all my responses to ten unless being asked to go more.
The whites are under attack on a daily basis. IF you were honest, you will remember that I tied this nation's posterity to a host of things, the two mentionables were race and culture (which became pretty much one and the same in our laws.)
The next one that was inferred was our religious views which shaped our customs, laws, and national sense of right and wrong (our values as a people.) You cannot attack one without the other.
There is much more to the story than the hue of the skin color of the majority... and you're most likely as wrong there as anything else.
Finally, quit lying about Kennesaw or I won't reply at all. Drop it if you want any replies from me. You have lied about what I said so, we won't be pursuing it any longer.
Considering the post I used the multi-quote function in only had 10 paragraphs written by me, I wonder what it is you are looking at? Are you, for some reason, unhappy about having me reply to specific portions of your posts? Your problem with this is odd but funny. It's especially rich when you say "we need to discuss my responses one at a time" but are upset when I use the function specifically designed to break up the quoted post in order to reply to each point one at a time.
My response was not 50 paragraphs, nor was it a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps you have counting issues, but it was only 10 paragraphs of my own. Any other paragraphs were quotes from you. You have an odd definition of trolling...and "plan and simple facts," for that matter.
Please, feel free to point out a single lie about Kennesaw. Unlike you, I actually provided evidence for every claim I made regarding Kennesaw; that it is not the safest town in GA (although I am happy to admit that depends on how you define safe in this context), that the law does not actually require every home to have a gun in it, and I pointed out that you bringing up Kennesaw being majority white is fairly meaningless, as most towns will be majority white in this country based on racial demographics, and that Kennesaw actually has a lower percentage of whites than the country as a whole does. You brought Kennesaw into the discussion, now you're upset that I'm pointing out where you were wrong in your statements? I have no sympathy. You won't reply to me unless I only discuss the things you want me to? Don't reply then.
You still have not shown how whites are experiencing genocide, unless you perhaps define genocide as a decline in the rate of population growth. I don't see how that qualifies as an intentional genocide, can you explain that? Or perhaps just give the definition of genocide you are operating under?
Is this genocide also happening to Christians? Maybe only to white Christians? Maybe only to white Christians who are part of a particular culture? You have made claims, provided little to no evidence to back those claims, and seem to be upset that I am refuting or disagreeing with those claims.
I provided you the advertising from Kennesaw itself. There was no intent to lie or deceive a damn soul. You're out of your league if that is all you got. Every time the town comes up, you'll get the same reply... NOT INTERESTED. Got anything else?
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
- May 4, 2009
- 22,484
- 5,356
You brought up other nations. If you don't care what they think, I don't know why you'd bring up what they think. Specifically, you claimed that this is the only country where being founded for whites is presented as a bad thing.
If you consider the US to be based on white men; if you think that allowing non-whites to be citizens is destroying the republic; if you think that things not part of the founding, such as women being allowed to vote, constitute destroying the republic; then the republic was destroyed long ago. At this point, you should be arguing for restoration of the republic as you see it, not talking about attempts to destroy what no longer exists.
I see no genocide against whites. Whites still make up the majority of the country, and even if predictions about racial make-up are true, whites will remain the largest racial group in the US for a long time to come.
Rejecting their god in favor of drugs, booze, and tattoos?
Some of the things that you think made this nation great, a majority of the nation apparently disagree with you about.
That law is symbolic. It is not enforced. People do not have their homes searched, they are not charged with crimes, for not owning a firearm. In fact, the way it is written, anyone who doesn't want a firearm in their home is exempt from the law. And from what I've read, Kennesaw was not a high-crime area before the law. Georgia town not alone in using gun law as 'deterrent'
Further, from what I've been able to gather, Kennsaw actually has a lower % of whites in the population than the country has overall (although slightly more than GA has overall). Kennesaw, GA Population and Races - USA.com™
According to those numbers, Kennesaw was 62.81% white, whereas the country was 73.81% white, as of 2014.
It appears everything you said about Kennesaw is false, other than it perhaps being the safest town in GA. Of course, even there, I have seen other towns in Georgia listed as safer: Here Are The 10 Safest And Most Peaceful Places To Live In Georgia
So a small town with a symbolic law that is never enforced, with a white population significantly less than that of the country as a whole, which did not have the lowest crime rate as of 2015. What was your point?
This seems like a ridiculously ineffective genocide, where whites continue to be the majority race in the country for at least decades to come. Perhaps you are really upset that whites don't have as much power over minorities as in the past?
Get a life, dude. It is not necessary to quote every freaking line I post. It's boring and leads to posts that nobody will read.
I never said a damn thing about how other nations feel about the United States. I said it's okay that other nations can be built on the same principles that the U.S. is (though for different people) and it's all good... That means Americans will accept it, but find fault with it when the people of our Constitution were white. Now give it a rest.
Ever since we've allowed blacks to become citizens, there has been divisiveness, anger, and chaos. Each generation it gets worse and every time the blacks feel wronged, the whites bend over backward, kiss their ass, compromise a little more and lose ground, while the over-all objective is to push the white people into oblivion.
Early in this nation's history, only land owners were allowed the privilege of voting. Today, the masses can vote themselves the riches of the producers and families can be turned against each other with democracy.
Your claim is that a lot of people disagree with me. Well Duh... That is why Trump's message resonated so well. America was founded as a constitutional Republic, not a democracy. And, ever since the people began worshipping the Golden Calf, the masses have been proven to be wrong.
Your misrepresentations of what you think were my weakest point do not change the bottom line. So, since you have an issue with either interpretation or honesty, if you have a point, make it. Just because YOU can't see something, it doesn't mean it isn't there. You need to talk to the guy who has been impacted by this subtle genocide. But try to marginalize their lives and then get back to me.
Just for chits and giggles, Kennesaw is 63 percent white, roughly 14 percent are Other Than Black and fewer that a fourth of the residents are black.
Using the multi-quote function means I don't have a life?
What other nations are built upon the same principles you think the US is built on, and where do you get your knowledge of who accepts that and who does not?
Do you honestly believe there was no divisiveness, anger, or chaos before blacks became citizens?
The overall objective of who is to "push the white people into oblivion"? And why are you worried, since those people seem to be pretty bad at accomplishing the objective, as whites continue to be the majority race in this country and are expected to remain so for the foreseeable future?
Early in this nation's history, only men were allowed the privilege of voting. Do you want to go back to that, as well?
The US is still a constitutional republic. It is most certainly not a direct democracy. The US is, however, a representative democracy. If you believe otherwise, you are confused as to what those terms mean.
What is the bottom line as you see it? Of course just because I don't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.....by the same token, just because you think you see something does not mean it does exist. You keep talking about the destruction of the white race (genocide) and yet, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, whites still make up a majority of the nation, and are expected to continue to do so for the next few decades, at least. Even when whites are not the majority, they are still expected to be the largest single racial group in the country. If this is an intentional genocide, it's a damned long-term one!
I do have an issue with your interpretation and seeming lack of honesty.
When you feel the need to quote every single paragraph and sentence, it does say you don't have a life.
If you would like to discuss A paragraph from my earlier posting, feel free to ask. Nobody is going to read walls of text. I can do the point / counterpoint thing all day long, but since you have problems with reading comprehension, honesty or something above my ability to diagnose, we need to discuss my responses one at a time. Otherwise NOBODY will read fifty paragraphs every response - and I won't answer you. It's you trolling and unable to overcome the plain and simple facts. Dude, I didn't read your post once it exceeded a dozen paragraphs. I limit all my responses to ten unless being asked to go more.
The whites are under attack on a daily basis. IF you were honest, you will remember that I tied this nation's posterity to a host of things, the two mentionables were race and culture (which became pretty much one and the same in our laws.)
The next one that was inferred was our religious views which shaped our customs, laws, and national sense of right and wrong (our values as a people.) You cannot attack one without the other.
There is much more to the story than the hue of the skin color of the majority... and you're most likely as wrong there as anything else.
Finally, quit lying about Kennesaw or I won't reply at all. Drop it if you want any replies from me. You have lied about what I said so, we won't be pursuing it any longer.
Considering the post I used the multi-quote function in only had 10 paragraphs written by me, I wonder what it is you are looking at? Are you, for some reason, unhappy about having me reply to specific portions of your posts? Your problem with this is odd but funny. It's especially rich when you say "we need to discuss my responses one at a time" but are upset when I use the function specifically designed to break up the quoted post in order to reply to each point one at a time.
My response was not 50 paragraphs, nor was it a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps you have counting issues, but it was only 10 paragraphs of my own. Any other paragraphs were quotes from you. You have an odd definition of trolling...and "plan and simple facts," for that matter.
Please, feel free to point out a single lie about Kennesaw. Unlike you, I actually provided evidence for every claim I made regarding Kennesaw; that it is not the safest town in GA (although I am happy to admit that depends on how you define safe in this context), that the law does not actually require every home to have a gun in it, and I pointed out that you bringing up Kennesaw being majority white is fairly meaningless, as most towns will be majority white in this country based on racial demographics, and that Kennesaw actually has a lower percentage of whites than the country as a whole does. You brought Kennesaw into the discussion, now you're upset that I'm pointing out where you were wrong in your statements? I have no sympathy. You won't reply to me unless I only discuss the things you want me to? Don't reply then.
You still have not shown how whites are experiencing genocide, unless you perhaps define genocide as a decline in the rate of population growth. I don't see how that qualifies as an intentional genocide, can you explain that? Or perhaps just give the definition of genocide you are operating under?
Is this genocide also happening to Christians? Maybe only to white Christians? Maybe only to white Christians who are part of a particular culture? You have made claims, provided little to no evidence to back those claims, and seem to be upset that I am refuting or disagreeing with those claims.
I provided you the advertising from Kennesaw itself. There was no intent to lie or deceive a damn soul. You're out of your league if that is all you got. Every time the town comes up, you'll get the same reply... NOT INTERESTED. Got anything else?
Perhaps you should make use of the multi-quote function, then you might not ignore so much of my posts.
You failed to answer any of the questions posed about what you've claimed. You also ignored my explaining to you that I neither wrote 50 paragraphs, nor more than a dozen, in the post you complained about my use of multi-quote.Also, you provided the advertising from Kennesaw? It's strange that you never indicated that. All you did was post this:
Nothing about advertising there. I am guessing you are NOT INTERESTED because you just don't want to admit any mistake or wrong.
Care to answer any of my questions regarding your claims of white genocide yet, or do you plan to keep ignoring those?
Using the multi-quote function means I don't have a life?
What other nations are built upon the same principles you think the US is built on, and where do you get your knowledge of who accepts that and who does not?
Do you honestly believe there was no divisiveness, anger, or chaos before blacks became citizens?
The overall objective of who is to "push the white people into oblivion"? And why are you worried, since those people seem to be pretty bad at accomplishing the objective, as whites continue to be the majority race in this country and are expected to remain so for the foreseeable future?
Early in this nation's history, only men were allowed the privilege of voting. Do you want to go back to that, as well?
The US is still a constitutional republic. It is most certainly not a direct democracy. The US is, however, a representative democracy. If you believe otherwise, you are confused as to what those terms mean.
What is the bottom line as you see it? Of course just because I don't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.....by the same token, just because you think you see something does not mean it does exist. You keep talking about the destruction of the white race (genocide) and yet, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, whites still make up a majority of the nation, and are expected to continue to do so for the next few decades, at least. Even when whites are not the majority, they are still expected to be the largest single racial group in the country. If this is an intentional genocide, it's a damned long-term one!
I do have an issue with your interpretation and seeming lack of honesty.
When you feel the need to quote every single paragraph and sentence, it does say you don't have a life.
If you would like to discuss A paragraph from my earlier posting, feel free to ask. Nobody is going to read walls of text. I can do the point / counterpoint thing all day long, but since you have problems with reading comprehension, honesty or something above my ability to diagnose, we need to discuss my responses one at a time. Otherwise NOBODY will read fifty paragraphs every response - and I won't answer you. It's you trolling and unable to overcome the plain and simple facts. Dude, I didn't read your post once it exceeded a dozen paragraphs. I limit all my responses to ten unless being asked to go more.
The whites are under attack on a daily basis. IF you were honest, you will remember that I tied this nation's posterity to a host of things, the two mentionables were race and culture (which became pretty much one and the same in our laws.)
The next one that was inferred was our religious views which shaped our customs, laws, and national sense of right and wrong (our values as a people.) You cannot attack one without the other.
There is much more to the story than the hue of the skin color of the majority... and you're most likely as wrong there as anything else.
Finally, quit lying about Kennesaw or I won't reply at all. Drop it if you want any replies from me. You have lied about what I said so, we won't be pursuing it any longer.
Considering the post I used the multi-quote function in only had 10 paragraphs written by me, I wonder what it is you are looking at? Are you, for some reason, unhappy about having me reply to specific portions of your posts? Your problem with this is odd but funny. It's especially rich when you say "we need to discuss my responses one at a time" but are upset when I use the function specifically designed to break up the quoted post in order to reply to each point one at a time.
My response was not 50 paragraphs, nor was it a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps you have counting issues, but it was only 10 paragraphs of my own. Any other paragraphs were quotes from you. You have an odd definition of trolling...and "plan and simple facts," for that matter.
Please, feel free to point out a single lie about Kennesaw. Unlike you, I actually provided evidence for every claim I made regarding Kennesaw; that it is not the safest town in GA (although I am happy to admit that depends on how you define safe in this context), that the law does not actually require every home to have a gun in it, and I pointed out that you bringing up Kennesaw being majority white is fairly meaningless, as most towns will be majority white in this country based on racial demographics, and that Kennesaw actually has a lower percentage of whites than the country as a whole does. You brought Kennesaw into the discussion, now you're upset that I'm pointing out where you were wrong in your statements? I have no sympathy. You won't reply to me unless I only discuss the things you want me to? Don't reply then.
You still have not shown how whites are experiencing genocide, unless you perhaps define genocide as a decline in the rate of population growth. I don't see how that qualifies as an intentional genocide, can you explain that? Or perhaps just give the definition of genocide you are operating under?
Is this genocide also happening to Christians? Maybe only to white Christians? Maybe only to white Christians who are part of a particular culture? You have made claims, provided little to no evidence to back those claims, and seem to be upset that I am refuting or disagreeing with those claims.
I provided you the advertising from Kennesaw itself. There was no intent to lie or deceive a damn soul. You're out of your league if that is all you got. Every time the town comes up, you'll get the same reply... NOT INTERESTED. Got anything else?
Perhaps you should make use of the multi-quote function, then you might not ignore so much of my posts.
Also, you provided the advertising from Kennesaw? It's strange that you never indicated that. All you did was post this:
Nothing about advertising there. I am guessing you are NOT INTERESTED because you just don't want to admit any mistake or wrong.
Care to answer any of my questions regarding your claims of white genocide yet, or do you plan to keep ignoring those?
I've not made any mistakes; I won't use the multiquote function because - and READ THIS - NOBODY is going to read a back and forth pissing match covering many paragraphs with you trying to prove your mental superiority over what you think is a major victory over a very minor issue.
Kennesaw Georgia bills itself as the safest city in the U.S. Are they? If they aren't, it would depend upon what the criteria is. When it comes to crimes of violence, they are far lower than the rest of metro Atlanta. I live less than an hour's distance from Kennesaw. The 2010 Census put our city's white population at 48.2 percent and that was nearly EIGHT years ago. Kennesaw is roughly 63 percent white. The crime rate is nearly 20 percent greater where I live compared to a place less than an hour away... and by the time you get just a few more miles down the road to Atlanta, the number of crimes gets even higher.
If I look at the situation from a nation-wide perspective, one thing is obvious: the larger the non-white population, the greater the crime rate in most instances. While a LOT of factors come into play, it is dishonest and disingenuous to deny that the possibility that many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours.
Disagreeing with me is not refuting anything, kid. The links (if you know how to access them) speak for themselves.
Now, when you want to quit talking about Kennesaw, IF you have a case, make it. But, if you think that anybody on the face of this earth can be wrong about everything, you're an idiot and a troll that is not into a serious civil discussion.
You ignored the most important things in my posts to harp on what you thought were the weakest. To the really critical thinker, that only demonstrated the weakness of your position. You don't want to go there. IF you have an issue you'd like to discuss, let's do it. If not, we're through.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
- May 4, 2009
- 22,484
- 5,356
Using the multi-quote function means I don't have a life?
What other nations are built upon the same principles you think the US is built on, and where do you get your knowledge of who accepts that and who does not?
Do you honestly believe there was no divisiveness, anger, or chaos before blacks became citizens?
The overall objective of who is to "push the white people into oblivion"? And why are you worried, since those people seem to be pretty bad at accomplishing the objective, as whites continue to be the majority race in this country and are expected to remain so for the foreseeable future?
Early in this nation's history, only men were allowed the privilege of voting. Do you want to go back to that, as well?
The US is still a constitutional republic. It is most certainly not a direct democracy. The US is, however, a representative democracy. If you believe otherwise, you are confused as to what those terms mean.
What is the bottom line as you see it? Of course just because I don't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.....by the same token, just because you think you see something does not mean it does exist. You keep talking about the destruction of the white race (genocide) and yet, as I've pointed out on multiple occasions, whites still make up a majority of the nation, and are expected to continue to do so for the next few decades, at least. Even when whites are not the majority, they are still expected to be the largest single racial group in the country. If this is an intentional genocide, it's a damned long-term one!
I do have an issue with your interpretation and seeming lack of honesty.
When you feel the need to quote every single paragraph and sentence, it does say you don't have a life.
If you would like to discuss A paragraph from my earlier posting, feel free to ask. Nobody is going to read walls of text. I can do the point / counterpoint thing all day long, but since you have problems with reading comprehension, honesty or something above my ability to diagnose, we need to discuss my responses one at a time. Otherwise NOBODY will read fifty paragraphs every response - and I won't answer you. It's you trolling and unable to overcome the plain and simple facts. Dude, I didn't read your post once it exceeded a dozen paragraphs. I limit all my responses to ten unless being asked to go more.
The whites are under attack on a daily basis. IF you were honest, you will remember that I tied this nation's posterity to a host of things, the two mentionables were race and culture (which became pretty much one and the same in our laws.)
The next one that was inferred was our religious views which shaped our customs, laws, and national sense of right and wrong (our values as a people.) You cannot attack one without the other.
There is much more to the story than the hue of the skin color of the majority... and you're most likely as wrong there as anything else.
Finally, quit lying about Kennesaw or I won't reply at all. Drop it if you want any replies from me. You have lied about what I said so, we won't be pursuing it any longer.
Considering the post I used the multi-quote function in only had 10 paragraphs written by me, I wonder what it is you are looking at? Are you, for some reason, unhappy about having me reply to specific portions of your posts? Your problem with this is odd but funny. It's especially rich when you say "we need to discuss my responses one at a time" but are upset when I use the function specifically designed to break up the quoted post in order to reply to each point one at a time.
My response was not 50 paragraphs, nor was it a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps you have counting issues, but it was only 10 paragraphs of my own. Any other paragraphs were quotes from you. You have an odd definition of trolling...and "plan and simple facts," for that matter.
Please, feel free to point out a single lie about Kennesaw. Unlike you, I actually provided evidence for every claim I made regarding Kennesaw; that it is not the safest town in GA (although I am happy to admit that depends on how you define safe in this context), that the law does not actually require every home to have a gun in it, and I pointed out that you bringing up Kennesaw being majority white is fairly meaningless, as most towns will be majority white in this country based on racial demographics, and that Kennesaw actually has a lower percentage of whites than the country as a whole does. You brought Kennesaw into the discussion, now you're upset that I'm pointing out where you were wrong in your statements? I have no sympathy. You won't reply to me unless I only discuss the things you want me to? Don't reply then.
You still have not shown how whites are experiencing genocide, unless you perhaps define genocide as a decline in the rate of population growth. I don't see how that qualifies as an intentional genocide, can you explain that? Or perhaps just give the definition of genocide you are operating under?
Is this genocide also happening to Christians? Maybe only to white Christians? Maybe only to white Christians who are part of a particular culture? You have made claims, provided little to no evidence to back those claims, and seem to be upset that I am refuting or disagreeing with those claims.
I provided you the advertising from Kennesaw itself. There was no intent to lie or deceive a damn soul. You're out of your league if that is all you got. Every time the town comes up, you'll get the same reply... NOT INTERESTED. Got anything else?
Perhaps you should make use of the multi-quote function, then you might not ignore so much of my posts.
Also, you provided the advertising from Kennesaw? It's strange that you never indicated that. All you did was post this:
Nothing about advertising there. I am guessing you are NOT INTERESTED because you just don't want to admit any mistake or wrong.
Care to answer any of my questions regarding your claims of white genocide yet, or do you plan to keep ignoring those?
I've not made any mistakes; I won't use the multiquote function because - and READ THIS - NOBODY is going to read a back and forth pissing match covering many paragraphs with you trying to prove your mental superiority over what you think is a major victory over a very minor issue.
Kennesaw Georgia bills itself as the safest city in the U.S. Are they? If they aren't, it would depend upon what the criteria is. When it comes to crimes of violence, they are far lower than the rest of metro Atlanta. I live less than an hour's distance from Kennesaw. The 2010 Census put our city's white population at 48.2 percent and that was nearly EIGHT years ago. Kennesaw is roughly 63 percent white. The crime rate is nearly 20 percent greater where I live compared to a place less than an hour away... and by the time you get just a few more miles down the road to Atlanta, the number of crimes gets even higher.
If I look at the situation from a nation-wide perspective, one thing is obvious: the larger the non-white population, the greater the crime rate in most instances. While a LOT of factors come into play, it is dishonest and disingenuous to deny that the possibility that many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours.
Disagreeing with me is not refuting anything, kid. The links (if you know how to access them) speak for themselves.
Now, when you want to quit talking about Kennesaw, IF you have a case, make it. But, if you think that anybody on the face of this earth can be wrong about everything, you're an idiot and a troll that is not into a serious civil discussion.
You ignored the most important things in my posts to harp on what you thought were the weakest. To the really critical thinker, that only demonstrated the weakness of your position. You don't want to go there. IF you have an issue you'd like to discuss, let's do it. If not, we're through.
It's good of you to speak for the rest of the posters on the board. You may not believe this, but there probably aren't too many people reading this conversation regardless of whether or not I use the multi-quote function. You also may not realize this, but using the multi-quote function doesn't actually increase the number of paragraphs in a post; all of the quoted paragraphs would still be there in a full post quote, just hidden. I'm not sure why that's put such a bug up your ass, but you'll notice I haven't used it again.
You haven't made any mistakes? Well, you mistakenly claimed that all Kennesaw homes are required by law to have a gun in them. That isn't true, as I provided evidence for.
I did not claim that disagreeing with you was refuting you. I pretty clearly said that I have been refuting or disagreeing with your claims. Notice the word 'or': it indicates doing one or the other, not that both are the same thing.
I haven't claimed any "major victory" over you. I have pointed out when you've made a false claim, or claims I feel are wrong, or claims without much evidence to back them up.
I have not denied the possibility that "many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours." I will say clearly that I think you are wrong, at least when it comes to races; a person's race does not prevent them from adopting American culture.
You provided a link about English law from the 6th century to the 11th century. You provided another link that supposedly goes to an article about the development of the Anglo-American judicial system, but is broken. You provided a link to the Dred Scott decision, which is widely considered one of the worst decisions in the history of the USSC. I suppose I can agree that those links speak for themselves; I'm pretty sure we disagree about what it is they are saying, though.
I have still not seen any evidence that a genocide is being perpetrated on the white population of the US.
I never claimed anything like that someone is wrong about everything. I'm not sure where you get that from.
I would like to see statistics that support the idea that the higher the non-white population, the greater the crime rate. That is true in some instances, but not others, from what I can recall of statistics I've seen; blacks and Native Indians have higher crime rates than whites, but Asians have a lower one, I believe.
You talk about me having a weak position, but much of my position is simply that you do not have any compelling evidence for yours.
Considering the post I used the multi-quote function in only had 10 paragraphs written by me, I wonder what it is you are looking at? Are you, for some reason, unhappy about having me reply to specific portions of your posts? Your problem with this is odd but funny. It's especially rich when you say "we need to discuss my responses one at a time" but are upset when I use the function specifically designed to break up the quoted post in order to reply to each point one at a time.
My response was not 50 paragraphs, nor was it a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps you have counting issues, but it was only 10 paragraphs of my own. Any other paragraphs were quotes from you. You have an odd definition of trolling...and "plan and simple facts," for that matter.
Please, feel free to point out a single lie about Kennesaw. Unlike you, I actually provided evidence for every claim I made regarding Kennesaw; that it is not the safest town in GA (although I am happy to admit that depends on how you define safe in this context), that the law does not actually require every home to have a gun in it, and I pointed out that you bringing up Kennesaw being majority white is fairly meaningless, as most towns will be majority white in this country based on racial demographics, and that Kennesaw actually has a lower percentage of whites than the country as a whole does. You brought Kennesaw into the discussion, now you're upset that I'm pointing out where you were wrong in your statements? I have no sympathy. You won't reply to me unless I only discuss the things you want me to? Don't reply then.
You still have not shown how whites are experiencing genocide, unless you perhaps define genocide as a decline in the rate of population growth. I don't see how that qualifies as an intentional genocide, can you explain that? Or perhaps just give the definition of genocide you are operating under?
Is this genocide also happening to Christians? Maybe only to white Christians? Maybe only to white Christians who are part of a particular culture? You have made claims, provided little to no evidence to back those claims, and seem to be upset that I am refuting or disagreeing with those claims.
I provided you the advertising from Kennesaw itself. There was no intent to lie or deceive a damn soul. You're out of your league if that is all you got. Every time the town comes up, you'll get the same reply... NOT INTERESTED. Got anything else?
Perhaps you should make use of the multi-quote function, then you might not ignore so much of my posts.
Also, you provided the advertising from Kennesaw? It's strange that you never indicated that. All you did was post this:
Nothing about advertising there. I am guessing you are NOT INTERESTED because you just don't want to admit any mistake or wrong.
Care to answer any of my questions regarding your claims of white genocide yet, or do you plan to keep ignoring those?
I've not made any mistakes; I won't use the multiquote function because - and READ THIS - NOBODY is going to read a back and forth pissing match covering many paragraphs with you trying to prove your mental superiority over what you think is a major victory over a very minor issue.
Kennesaw Georgia bills itself as the safest city in the U.S. Are they? If they aren't, it would depend upon what the criteria is. When it comes to crimes of violence, they are far lower than the rest of metro Atlanta. I live less than an hour's distance from Kennesaw. The 2010 Census put our city's white population at 48.2 percent and that was nearly EIGHT years ago. Kennesaw is roughly 63 percent white. The crime rate is nearly 20 percent greater where I live compared to a place less than an hour away... and by the time you get just a few more miles down the road to Atlanta, the number of crimes gets even higher.
If I look at the situation from a nation-wide perspective, one thing is obvious: the larger the non-white population, the greater the crime rate in most instances. While a LOT of factors come into play, it is dishonest and disingenuous to deny that the possibility that many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours.
Disagreeing with me is not refuting anything, kid. The links (if you know how to access them) speak for themselves.
Now, when you want to quit talking about Kennesaw, IF you have a case, make it. But, if you think that anybody on the face of this earth can be wrong about everything, you're an idiot and a troll that is not into a serious civil discussion.
You ignored the most important things in my posts to harp on what you thought were the weakest. To the really critical thinker, that only demonstrated the weakness of your position. You don't want to go there. IF you have an issue you'd like to discuss, let's do it. If not, we're through.
It's good of you to speak for the rest of the posters on the board. You may not believe this, but there probably aren't too many people reading this conversation regardless of whether or not I use the multi-quote function. You also may not realize this, but using the multi-quote function doesn't actually increase the number of paragraphs in a post; all of the quoted paragraphs would still be there in a full post quote, just hidden. I'm not sure why that's put such a bug up your ass, but you'll notice I haven't used it again.
You haven't made any mistakes? Well, you mistakenly claimed that all Kennesaw homes are required by law to have a gun in them. That isn't true, as I provided evidence for.
I did not claim that disagreeing with you was refuting you. I pretty clearly said that I have been refuting or disagreeing with your claims. Notice the word 'or': it indicates doing one or the other, not that both are the same thing.
I haven't claimed any "major victory" over you. I have pointed out when you've made a false claim, or claims I feel are wrong, or claims without much evidence to back them up.
I have not denied the possibility that "many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours." I will say clearly that I think you are wrong, at least when it comes to races; a person's race does not prevent them from adopting American culture.
You provided a link about English law from the 6th century to the 11th century. You provided another link that supposedly goes to an article about the development of the Anglo-American judicial system, but is broken. You provided a link to the Dred Scott decision, which is widely considered one of the worst decisions in the history of the USSC. I suppose I can agree that those links speak for themselves; I'm pretty sure we disagree about what it is they are saying, though.
I have still not seen any evidence that a genocide is being perpetrated on the white population of the US.
I never claimed anything like that someone is wrong about everything. I'm not sure where you get that from.
I would like to see statistics that support the idea that the higher the non-white population, the greater the crime rate. That is true in some instances, but not others, from what I can recall of statistics I've seen; blacks and Native Indians have higher crime rates than whites, but Asians have a lower one, I believe.
You talk about me having a weak position, but much of my position is simply that you do not have any compelling evidence for yours.
It appears to me that all you want is to attempt to try and discredit me with a mere opinion. If a link was broken, then you were blowing smoke because you did not see the evidence... not hardly my fault since this isn't my board. So, since the link was broken, evidence wasn't compelling... how do we have a civil conversation based on that?
By today's standards, the Dred Scott decision was unpopular. But, it was extremely well documented and factual. For example, Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III.
You probably went looking for some half baked opinion and never actually read the Dred Scott decision. You just searched the Internet to see if you could find someone to agree with you.
All of that is well and good, but we got off to a bad start when you started calling me a liar. So, I don't know how much room there is for a civil discussion. Be forewarned: if you challenge me, I've read all of the material I quote. You doing the Cliff's Notes deal and finding people to "disagree" with me when most of them never actually read the material will prove extremely embarrassing for you. It's just that I can't have a civil and serious conversation with people who have started out calling me a liar (a question or two would have yielded you much better results.) I can't take you seriously when you say there is no compelling evidence and then say a link was broken. If you haven't yet seen the evidence, it's hard to say whether or not it's compelling.
I have a feeling what you want to do is to try and see how much you can Google to attempt to prove me wrong and pretend that makes you somehow superior. That's not a good way to have a civil conversation. You are not prepared to be in a debate because if that is what you're doing, let me give you some advice:
I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can. The silly ass game of working people to get them to put their opinion out there so you can shoot it down via Google is infantile and won't impress me.
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
- May 4, 2009
- 22,484
- 5,356
Considering the post I used the multi-quote function in only had 10 paragraphs written by me, I wonder what it is you are looking at? Are you, for some reason, unhappy about having me reply to specific portions of your posts? Your problem with this is odd but funny. It's especially rich when you say "we need to discuss my responses one at a time" but are upset when I use the function specifically designed to break up the quoted post in order to reply to each point one at a time.
My response was not 50 paragraphs, nor was it a dozen paragraphs. Perhaps you have counting issues, but it was only 10 paragraphs of my own. Any other paragraphs were quotes from you. You have an odd definition of trolling...and "plan and simple facts," for that matter.
Please, feel free to point out a single lie about Kennesaw. Unlike you, I actually provided evidence for every claim I made regarding Kennesaw; that it is not the safest town in GA (although I am happy to admit that depends on how you define safe in this context), that the law does not actually require every home to have a gun in it, and I pointed out that you bringing up Kennesaw being majority white is fairly meaningless, as most towns will be majority white in this country based on racial demographics, and that Kennesaw actually has a lower percentage of whites than the country as a whole does. You brought Kennesaw into the discussion, now you're upset that I'm pointing out where you were wrong in your statements? I have no sympathy. You won't reply to me unless I only discuss the things you want me to? Don't reply then.
You still have not shown how whites are experiencing genocide, unless you perhaps define genocide as a decline in the rate of population growth. I don't see how that qualifies as an intentional genocide, can you explain that? Or perhaps just give the definition of genocide you are operating under?
Is this genocide also happening to Christians? Maybe only to white Christians? Maybe only to white Christians who are part of a particular culture? You have made claims, provided little to no evidence to back those claims, and seem to be upset that I am refuting or disagreeing with those claims.
I provided you the advertising from Kennesaw itself. There was no intent to lie or deceive a damn soul. You're out of your league if that is all you got. Every time the town comes up, you'll get the same reply... NOT INTERESTED. Got anything else?
Perhaps you should make use of the multi-quote function, then you might not ignore so much of my posts.
Also, you provided the advertising from Kennesaw? It's strange that you never indicated that. All you did was post this:
Nothing about advertising there. I am guessing you are NOT INTERESTED because you just don't want to admit any mistake or wrong.
Care to answer any of my questions regarding your claims of white genocide yet, or do you plan to keep ignoring those?
I've not made any mistakes; I won't use the multiquote function because - and READ THIS - NOBODY is going to read a back and forth pissing match covering many paragraphs with you trying to prove your mental superiority over what you think is a major victory over a very minor issue.
Kennesaw Georgia bills itself as the safest city in the U.S. Are they? If they aren't, it would depend upon what the criteria is. When it comes to crimes of violence, they are far lower than the rest of metro Atlanta. I live less than an hour's distance from Kennesaw. The 2010 Census put our city's white population at 48.2 percent and that was nearly EIGHT years ago. Kennesaw is roughly 63 percent white. The crime rate is nearly 20 percent greater where I live compared to a place less than an hour away... and by the time you get just a few more miles down the road to Atlanta, the number of crimes gets even higher.
If I look at the situation from a nation-wide perspective, one thing is obvious: the larger the non-white population, the greater the crime rate in most instances. While a LOT of factors come into play, it is dishonest and disingenuous to deny that the possibility that many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours.
Disagreeing with me is not refuting anything, kid. The links (if you know how to access them) speak for themselves.
Now, when you want to quit talking about Kennesaw, IF you have a case, make it. But, if you think that anybody on the face of this earth can be wrong about everything, you're an idiot and a troll that is not into a serious civil discussion.
You ignored the most important things in my posts to harp on what you thought were the weakest. To the really critical thinker, that only demonstrated the weakness of your position. You don't want to go there. IF you have an issue you'd like to discuss, let's do it. If not, we're through.
It's good of you to speak for the rest of the posters on the board. You may not believe this, but there probably aren't too many people reading this conversation regardless of whether or not I use the multi-quote function. You also may not realize this, but using the multi-quote function doesn't actually increase the number of paragraphs in a post; all of the quoted paragraphs would still be there in a full post quote, just hidden. I'm not sure why that's put such a bug up your ass, but you'll notice I haven't used it again.
You haven't made any mistakes? Well, you mistakenly claimed that all Kennesaw homes are required by law to have a gun in them. That isn't true, as I provided evidence for.
I did not claim that disagreeing with you was refuting you. I pretty clearly said that I have been refuting or disagreeing with your claims. Notice the word 'or': it indicates doing one or the other, not that both are the same thing.
I haven't claimed any "major victory" over you. I have pointed out when you've made a false claim, or claims I feel are wrong, or claims without much evidence to back them up.
I have not denied the possibility that "many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours." I will say clearly that I think you are wrong, at least when it comes to races; a person's race does not prevent them from adopting American culture.
You provided a link about English law from the 6th century to the 11th century. You provided another link that supposedly goes to an article about the development of the Anglo-American judicial system, but is broken. You provided a link to the Dred Scott decision, which is widely considered one of the worst decisions in the history of the USSC. I suppose I can agree that those links speak for themselves; I'm pretty sure we disagree about what it is they are saying, though.
I have still not seen any evidence that a genocide is being perpetrated on the white population of the US.
I never claimed anything like that someone is wrong about everything. I'm not sure where you get that from.
I would like to see statistics that support the idea that the higher the non-white population, the greater the crime rate. That is true in some instances, but not others, from what I can recall of statistics I've seen; blacks and Native Indians have higher crime rates than whites, but Asians have a lower one, I believe.
You talk about me having a weak position, but much of my position is simply that you do not have any compelling evidence for yours.
It appears to me that all you want is to attempt to try and discredit me with a mere opinion. If a link was broken, then you were blowing smoke because you did not see the evidence... not hardly my fault since this isn't my board. So, since the link was broken, evidence wasn't compelling... how do we have a civil conversation based on that?
By today's standards, the Dred Scott decision was unpopular. But, it was extremely well documented and factual. For example, Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III.
You probably went looking for some half baked opinion and never actually read the Dred Scott decision. You just searched the Internet to see if you could find someone to agree with you.
All of that is well and good, but we got off to a bad start when you started calling me a liar. So, I don't know how much room there is for a civil discussion. Be forewarned: if you challenge me, I've read all of the material I quote. You doing the Cliff's Notes deal and finding people to "disagree" with me when most of them never actually read the material will prove extremely embarrassing for you. It's just that I can't have a civil and serious conversation with people who have started out calling me a liar (a question or two would have yielded you much better results.) I can't take you seriously when you say there is no compelling evidence and then say a link was broken. If you haven't yet seen the evidence, it's hard to say whether or not it's compelling.
I have a feeling what you want to do is to try and see how much you can Google to attempt to prove me wrong and pretend that makes you somehow superior. That's not a good way to have a civil conversation. You are not prepared to be in a debate because if that is what you're doing, let me give you some advice:
I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can. The silly ass game of working people to get them to put their opinion out there so you can shoot it down via Google is infantile and won't impress me.
I started off calling you a liar? You might want to go back and see that you began this conversation by replying to a post of mine with a post of your own that was in large part unrelated. I asked IM2 what term he used for an individual who believes themself to be superior to other races. You replied with this:
So you began by claiming to know what I was going to say before I said it. That's pretty impressive, considering I don't recall ever having a conversation with you before.
I followed that with this post:
I did not start by calling you a liar. I'd have to go back to check, but I don't recall actually calling you a liar at any point. Also, I did ask you a couple of questions in my very first response to you.
Whatever the facts of the Dred Scott ruling, it certainly was based on opinion as well. You did, in fact, quote part of the opinion which says just that; the justices did not think that blacks were intended to be included as citizen in the Constitution. I did not have to "search the internet" for someone to agree with me. In fact, before I mentioned it, someone in this very thread pointed out that Dred Scott is considered a terrible ruling; Unkotare said as much in post #53. I have read and taken part in discussions about Dred Scott on this board on multiple other occasions, as well as having read about it outside of the board, and in the majority of cases, it is considered a bad ruling. Certainly it is a terrible ruling by modern standards, but even by the standards of the day, many believe it was bad. A later Chief Justice of the USSC, Charles Evan Hughes, called the Dred Scott decision a "self-inflicted wound." http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3570&context=cklawreview
Whether I search the internet or just go by what I've read about the case before now, most seem to consider it a bad ruling.
One bad link is not the reason I say you have not provided compelling evidence that whites are experiencing a targeted genocide. Your lack of evidence is why I say that. What evidence have you actually provided? So far as I recall, all you have done is made some statements and given your opinion, but not provided any actual evidence of said genocide. You've provided evidence of what English law was a millennia ago, and you've linked to Dred Scott, but I don't see how either of those is evidence of whites being victims of an intentional genocide. I've pointed out that whites remain the majority in this country, and are expected to be the largest racial group in the country for at least decades to come, but you have not explained how a group that is larger than any other in the US is the victim of genocide.
I looked up Kennesaw because it was an interesting claim and I wanted to see if it was true. It turned out that, at least in the case of all homes being legally required to have a gun, it is not true. I pointed that out, and you have as of yet refused to acknowledge your mistake. In fact, you've claimed not to have made any mistakes, despite the evidence to the contrary. You say you can't take a discussion with me seriously because I say there is no compelling evidence and a link is broken, but so far as I can tell that broken link would not have provided any evidence of a genocide, anyway. You say you can't have a serious conversation with someone who began by calling you a liar (going on to say "a question or two would have yielded better results), but as I've shown you, I did not begin by calling you a liar, and asked questions in my very first response to you. You called me a troll simply for using the multi-quote function. You said that you stopped reading my post which used multi-quote after it passed a dozen paragraphs, but I only wrote 10 paragraphs in that post, none particularly long. I have to say, if anyone aught to be talking about not being able to have a serious conversation here, it's me.
But I'll continue gamely on and ask, once again, what your evidence is that whites are being targeted by an attempt to commit genocide, and who exactly is making this attempt. Are all minorities part of this attempt? Only certain minorities? Are whites complicit in their own genocide? What makes it genocide, rather than simply a declining birth rate?
Can you admit to having made mistakes in this conversation?
Perhaps you should make use of the multi-quote function, then you might not ignore so much of my posts.
Also, you provided the advertising from Kennesaw? It's strange that you never indicated that. All you did was post this:
Nothing about advertising there. I am guessing you are NOT INTERESTED because you just don't want to admit any mistake or wrong.
Care to answer any of my questions regarding your claims of white genocide yet, or do you plan to keep ignoring those?
I've not made any mistakes; I won't use the multiquote function because - and READ THIS - NOBODY is going to read a back and forth pissing match covering many paragraphs with you trying to prove your mental superiority over what you think is a major victory over a very minor issue.
Kennesaw Georgia bills itself as the safest city in the U.S. Are they? If they aren't, it would depend upon what the criteria is. When it comes to crimes of violence, they are far lower than the rest of metro Atlanta. I live less than an hour's distance from Kennesaw. The 2010 Census put our city's white population at 48.2 percent and that was nearly EIGHT years ago. Kennesaw is roughly 63 percent white. The crime rate is nearly 20 percent greater where I live compared to a place less than an hour away... and by the time you get just a few more miles down the road to Atlanta, the number of crimes gets even higher.
If I look at the situation from a nation-wide perspective, one thing is obvious: the larger the non-white population, the greater the crime rate in most instances. While a LOT of factors come into play, it is dishonest and disingenuous to deny that the possibility that many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours.
Disagreeing with me is not refuting anything, kid. The links (if you know how to access them) speak for themselves.
Now, when you want to quit talking about Kennesaw, IF you have a case, make it. But, if you think that anybody on the face of this earth can be wrong about everything, you're an idiot and a troll that is not into a serious civil discussion.
You ignored the most important things in my posts to harp on what you thought were the weakest. To the really critical thinker, that only demonstrated the weakness of your position. You don't want to go there. IF you have an issue you'd like to discuss, let's do it. If not, we're through.
It's good of you to speak for the rest of the posters on the board. You may not believe this, but there probably aren't too many people reading this conversation regardless of whether or not I use the multi-quote function. You also may not realize this, but using the multi-quote function doesn't actually increase the number of paragraphs in a post; all of the quoted paragraphs would still be there in a full post quote, just hidden. I'm not sure why that's put such a bug up your ass, but you'll notice I haven't used it again.
You haven't made any mistakes? Well, you mistakenly claimed that all Kennesaw homes are required by law to have a gun in them. That isn't true, as I provided evidence for.
I did not claim that disagreeing with you was refuting you. I pretty clearly said that I have been refuting or disagreeing with your claims. Notice the word 'or': it indicates doing one or the other, not that both are the same thing.
I haven't claimed any "major victory" over you. I have pointed out when you've made a false claim, or claims I feel are wrong, or claims without much evidence to back them up.
I have not denied the possibility that "many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours." I will say clearly that I think you are wrong, at least when it comes to races; a person's race does not prevent them from adopting American culture.
You provided a link about English law from the 6th century to the 11th century. You provided another link that supposedly goes to an article about the development of the Anglo-American judicial system, but is broken. You provided a link to the Dred Scott decision, which is widely considered one of the worst decisions in the history of the USSC. I suppose I can agree that those links speak for themselves; I'm pretty sure we disagree about what it is they are saying, though.
I have still not seen any evidence that a genocide is being perpetrated on the white population of the US.
I never claimed anything like that someone is wrong about everything. I'm not sure where you get that from.
I would like to see statistics that support the idea that the higher the non-white population, the greater the crime rate. That is true in some instances, but not others, from what I can recall of statistics I've seen; blacks and Native Indians have higher crime rates than whites, but Asians have a lower one, I believe.
You talk about me having a weak position, but much of my position is simply that you do not have any compelling evidence for yours.
It appears to me that all you want is to attempt to try and discredit me with a mere opinion. If a link was broken, then you were blowing smoke because you did not see the evidence... not hardly my fault since this isn't my board. So, since the link was broken, evidence wasn't compelling... how do we have a civil conversation based on that?
By today's standards, the Dred Scott decision was unpopular. But, it was extremely well documented and factual. For example, Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III.
You probably went looking for some half baked opinion and never actually read the Dred Scott decision. You just searched the Internet to see if you could find someone to agree with you.
All of that is well and good, but we got off to a bad start when you started calling me a liar. So, I don't know how much room there is for a civil discussion. Be forewarned: if you challenge me, I've read all of the material I quote. You doing the Cliff's Notes deal and finding people to "disagree" with me when most of them never actually read the material will prove extremely embarrassing for you. It's just that I can't have a civil and serious conversation with people who have started out calling me a liar (a question or two would have yielded you much better results.) I can't take you seriously when you say there is no compelling evidence and then say a link was broken. If you haven't yet seen the evidence, it's hard to say whether or not it's compelling.
I have a feeling what you want to do is to try and see how much you can Google to attempt to prove me wrong and pretend that makes you somehow superior. That's not a good way to have a civil conversation. You are not prepared to be in a debate because if that is what you're doing, let me give you some advice:
I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can. The silly ass game of working people to get them to put their opinion out there so you can shoot it down via Google is infantile and won't impress me.
I started off calling you a liar? You might want to go back and see that you began this conversation by replying to a post of mine with a post of your own that was in large part unrelated. I asked IM2 what term he used for an individual who believes themself to be superior to other races. You replied with this:
So you began by claiming to know what I was going to say before I said it. That's pretty impressive, considering I don't recall ever having a conversation with you before.
I followed that with this post:
I did not start by calling you a liar. I'd have to go back to check, but I don't recall actually calling you a liar at any point. Also, I did ask you a couple of questions in my very first response to you.
Whatever the facts of the Dred Scott ruling, it certainly was based on opinion as well. You did, in fact, quote part of the opinion which says just that; the justices did not think that blacks were intended to be included as citizen in the Constitution. I did not have to "search the internet" for someone to agree with me. In fact, before I mentioned it, someone in this very thread pointed out that Dred Scott is considered a terrible ruling; Unkotare said as much in post #53. I have read and taken part in discussions about Dred Scott on this board on multiple other occasions, as well as having read about it outside of the board, and in the majority of cases, it is considered a bad ruling. Certainly it is a terrible ruling by modern standards, but even by the standards of the day, many believe it was bad. A later Chief Justice of the USSC, Charles Evan Hughes, called the Dred Scott decision a "self-inflicted wound." http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3570&context=cklawreview
Whether I search the internet or just go by what I've read about the case before now, most seem to consider it a bad ruling.
One bad link is not the reason I say you have not provided compelling evidence that whites are experiencing a targeted genocide. Your lack of evidence is why I say that. What evidence have you actually provided? So far as I recall, all you have done is made some statements and given your opinion, but not provided any actual evidence of said genocide. You've provided evidence of what English law was a millennia ago, and you've linked to Dred Scott, but I don't see how either of those is evidence of whites being victims of an intentional genocide. I've pointed out that whites remain the majority in this country, and are expected to be the largest racial group in the country for at least decades to come, but you have not explained how a group that is larger than any other in the US is the victim of genocide.
I looked up Kennesaw because it was an interesting claim and I wanted to see if it was true. It turned out that, at least in the case of all homes being legally required to have a gun, it is not true. I pointed that out, and you have as of yet refused to acknowledge your mistake. In fact, you've claimed not to have made any mistakes, despite the evidence to the contrary. You say you can't take a discussion with me seriously because I say there is no compelling evidence and a link is broken, but so far as I can tell that broken link would not have provided any evidence of a genocide, anyway. You say you can't have a serious conversation with someone who began by calling you a liar (going on to say "a question or two would have yielded better results), but as I've shown you, I did not begin by calling you a liar, and asked questions in my very first response to you. You called me a troll simply for using the multi-quote function. You said that you stopped reading my post which used multi-quote after it passed a dozen paragraphs, but I only wrote 10 paragraphs in that post, none particularly long. I have to say, if anyone aught to be talking about not being able to have a serious conversation here, it's me.
But I'll continue gamely on and ask, once again, what your evidence is that whites are being targeted by an attempt to commit genocide, and who exactly is making this attempt. Are all minorities part of this attempt? Only certain minorities? Are whites complicit in their own genocide? What makes it genocide, rather than simply a declining birth rate?
Can you admit to having made mistakes in this conversation?
I'll admit that everything I said about you is true:
"Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]:[21]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."
Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia
It's symbolic, I realize. But I'm not wrong nor did I lie about it. And if you want to get your facts from Unkotare, you may as well get your nutritional recommendations from a bag of M&Ms.
Now, you want to say something OR are you still going to imply that I lied?
Montrovant
Fuzzy bears!
- May 4, 2009
- 22,484
- 5,356
Perhaps you should make use of the multi-quote function, then you might not ignore so much of my posts.
Also, you provided the advertising from Kennesaw? It's strange that you never indicated that. All you did was post this: Nothing about advertising there. I am guessing you are NOT INTERESTED because you just don't want to admit any mistake or wrong.
Care to answer any of my questions regarding your claims of white genocide yet, or do you plan to keep ignoring those?
I've not made any mistakes; I won't use the multiquote function because - and READ THIS - NOBODY is going to read a back and forth pissing match covering many paragraphs with you trying to prove your mental superiority over what you think is a major victory over a very minor issue.
Kennesaw Georgia bills itself as the safest city in the U.S. Are they? If they aren't, it would depend upon what the criteria is. When it comes to crimes of violence, they are far lower than the rest of metro Atlanta. I live less than an hour's distance from Kennesaw. The 2010 Census put our city's white population at 48.2 percent and that was nearly EIGHT years ago. Kennesaw is roughly 63 percent white. The crime rate is nearly 20 percent greater where I live compared to a place less than an hour away... and by the time you get just a few more miles down the road to Atlanta, the number of crimes gets even higher.
If I look at the situation from a nation-wide perspective, one thing is obvious: the larger the non-white population, the greater the crime rate in most instances. While a LOT of factors come into play, it is dishonest and disingenuous to deny that the possibility that many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours.
Disagreeing with me is not refuting anything, kid. The links (if you know how to access them) speak for themselves.
Now, when you want to quit talking about Kennesaw, IF you have a case, make it. But, if you think that anybody on the face of this earth can be wrong about everything, you're an idiot and a troll that is not into a serious civil discussion.
You ignored the most important things in my posts to harp on what you thought were the weakest. To the really critical thinker, that only demonstrated the weakness of your position. You don't want to go there. IF you have an issue you'd like to discuss, let's do it. If not, we're through.
It's good of you to speak for the rest of the posters on the board. You may not believe this, but there probably aren't too many people reading this conversation regardless of whether or not I use the multi-quote function. You also may not realize this, but using the multi-quote function doesn't actually increase the number of paragraphs in a post; all of the quoted paragraphs would still be there in a full post quote, just hidden. I'm not sure why that's put such a bug up your ass, but you'll notice I haven't used it again.
You haven't made any mistakes? Well, you mistakenly claimed that all Kennesaw homes are required by law to have a gun in them. That isn't true, as I provided evidence for.
I did not claim that disagreeing with you was refuting you. I pretty clearly said that I have been refuting or disagreeing with your claims. Notice the word 'or': it indicates doing one or the other, not that both are the same thing.
I haven't claimed any "major victory" over you. I have pointed out when you've made a false claim, or claims I feel are wrong, or claims without much evidence to back them up.
I have not denied the possibility that "many races and cultures simply cannot acclimate themselves to ours." I will say clearly that I think you are wrong, at least when it comes to races; a person's race does not prevent them from adopting American culture.
You provided a link about English law from the 6th century to the 11th century. You provided another link that supposedly goes to an article about the development of the Anglo-American judicial system, but is broken. You provided a link to the Dred Scott decision, which is widely considered one of the worst decisions in the history of the USSC. I suppose I can agree that those links speak for themselves; I'm pretty sure we disagree about what it is they are saying, though.
I have still not seen any evidence that a genocide is being perpetrated on the white population of the US.
I never claimed anything like that someone is wrong about everything. I'm not sure where you get that from.
I would like to see statistics that support the idea that the higher the non-white population, the greater the crime rate. That is true in some instances, but not others, from what I can recall of statistics I've seen; blacks and Native Indians have higher crime rates than whites, but Asians have a lower one, I believe.
You talk about me having a weak position, but much of my position is simply that you do not have any compelling evidence for yours.
It appears to me that all you want is to attempt to try and discredit me with a mere opinion. If a link was broken, then you were blowing smoke because you did not see the evidence... not hardly my fault since this isn't my board. So, since the link was broken, evidence wasn't compelling... how do we have a civil conversation based on that?
By today's standards, the Dred Scott decision was unpopular. But, it was extremely well documented and factual. For example, Taney spent pages 407–421 of his decision chronicling the history of slave and negro law in the British colonies and American states to decide if federal law could recognize Scott as a citizen of any state within the meaning of Article III.
You probably went looking for some half baked opinion and never actually read the Dred Scott decision. You just searched the Internet to see if you could find someone to agree with you.
All of that is well and good, but we got off to a bad start when you started calling me a liar. So, I don't know how much room there is for a civil discussion. Be forewarned: if you challenge me, I've read all of the material I quote. You doing the Cliff's Notes deal and finding people to "disagree" with me when most of them never actually read the material will prove extremely embarrassing for you. It's just that I can't have a civil and serious conversation with people who have started out calling me a liar (a question or two would have yielded you much better results.) I can't take you seriously when you say there is no compelling evidence and then say a link was broken. If you haven't yet seen the evidence, it's hard to say whether or not it's compelling.
I have a feeling what you want to do is to try and see how much you can Google to attempt to prove me wrong and pretend that makes you somehow superior. That's not a good way to have a civil conversation. You are not prepared to be in a debate because if that is what you're doing, let me give you some advice:
I never lost a case in court. The reason being, I study the other guy's side until I can argue it better than he can. The silly ass game of working people to get them to put their opinion out there so you can shoot it down via Google is infantile and won't impress me.
I started off calling you a liar? You might want to go back and see that you began this conversation by replying to a post of mine with a post of your own that was in large part unrelated. I asked IM2 what term he used for an individual who believes themself to be superior to other races. You replied with this:
So you began by claiming to know what I was going to say before I said it. That's pretty impressive, considering I don't recall ever having a conversation with you before.
I followed that with this post:
I did not start by calling you a liar. I'd have to go back to check, but I don't recall actually calling you a liar at any point. Also, I did ask you a couple of questions in my very first response to you.
Whatever the facts of the Dred Scott ruling, it certainly was based on opinion as well. You did, in fact, quote part of the opinion which says just that; the justices did not think that blacks were intended to be included as citizen in the Constitution. I did not have to "search the internet" for someone to agree with me. In fact, before I mentioned it, someone in this very thread pointed out that Dred Scott is considered a terrible ruling; Unkotare said as much in post #53. I have read and taken part in discussions about Dred Scott on this board on multiple other occasions, as well as having read about it outside of the board, and in the majority of cases, it is considered a bad ruling. Certainly it is a terrible ruling by modern standards, but even by the standards of the day, many believe it was bad. A later Chief Justice of the USSC, Charles Evan Hughes, called the Dred Scott decision a "self-inflicted wound." http://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3570&context=cklawreview
Whether I search the internet or just go by what I've read about the case before now, most seem to consider it a bad ruling.
One bad link is not the reason I say you have not provided compelling evidence that whites are experiencing a targeted genocide. Your lack of evidence is why I say that. What evidence have you actually provided? So far as I recall, all you have done is made some statements and given your opinion, but not provided any actual evidence of said genocide. You've provided evidence of what English law was a millennia ago, and you've linked to Dred Scott, but I don't see how either of those is evidence of whites being victims of an intentional genocide. I've pointed out that whites remain the majority in this country, and are expected to be the largest racial group in the country for at least decades to come, but you have not explained how a group that is larger than any other in the US is the victim of genocide.
I looked up Kennesaw because it was an interesting claim and I wanted to see if it was true. It turned out that, at least in the case of all homes being legally required to have a gun, it is not true. I pointed that out, and you have as of yet refused to acknowledge your mistake. In fact, you've claimed not to have made any mistakes, despite the evidence to the contrary. You say you can't take a discussion with me seriously because I say there is no compelling evidence and a link is broken, but so far as I can tell that broken link would not have provided any evidence of a genocide, anyway. You say you can't have a serious conversation with someone who began by calling you a liar (going on to say "a question or two would have yielded better results), but as I've shown you, I did not begin by calling you a liar, and asked questions in my very first response to you. You called me a troll simply for using the multi-quote function. You said that you stopped reading my post which used multi-quote after it passed a dozen paragraphs, but I only wrote 10 paragraphs in that post, none particularly long. I have to say, if anyone aught to be talking about not being able to have a serious conversation here, it's me.
But I'll continue gamely on and ask, once again, what your evidence is that whites are being targeted by an attempt to commit genocide, and who exactly is making this attempt. Are all minorities part of this attempt? Only certain minorities? Are whites complicit in their own genocide? What makes it genocide, rather than simply a declining birth rate?
Can you admit to having made mistakes in this conversation?
I'll admit that everything I said about you is true:
"Kennesaw is noted for its unique firearms legislation in response to Morton Grove, Illinois' law mandating gun prohibition. In 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-21]:[21]
(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the city, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the city limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore."
Kennesaw, Georgia - Wikipedia
It's symbolic, I realize. But I'm not wrong nor did I lie about it. And if you want to get your facts from Unkotare, you may as well get your nutritional recommendations from a bag of M&Ms.
Now, you want to say something OR are you still going to imply that I lied?
The Kennesaw law is not only symbolic, it contains exemptions which basically make it that anyone who wishes to can decide not to keep a gun. The law does not require every home to have a gun.
Municode Library
So every head of household is required to maintain a firearm and ammunition.....except for those who cannot use such a firearm because of a disability, those who are poor, felons, and anyone who opposes doing so.
Your original quote about Kennesaw was this:
That is untrue, as every home is not required by law to have a gun in it. Even if the law in question were enforced, it would not require every home to have a gun in it, because pretty much anyone can be exempt. So yes, you were wrong about Kennesaw.
I did not say or imply that you lied, but instead that you made a mistake. I've actually said explicitly more than once that you've made a mistake rather than lie. That you continue to think I'm saying you are lying seems to me to say more about what you feel about the situation than what I do.
I didn't say anything about getting facts from Unkotare, but instead pointed out that he agreed with me about Dred Scott being considered a terrible decision, after you said I "searched the internet" for someone to agree with me. I didn't have to search, as someone agreed with me before I even posted about it.
You still have not explained about your genocide claim, after me asking about it multiple times.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 129,822
- 24,909
Don't bother whining about "civil discussion" when posting such typically liberal, infantile, "you can't disagree!" nonsense.
Unkotare
Diamond Member
- Aug 16, 2011
- 129,822
- 24,909
Similar threads
