Nutz
Gold Member
- Feb 27, 2014
- 14,814
- 1,810
- 265
- Banned
- #241
Wasn't my picture, pussy. You replied to the pic that someone else posted and gave some condescending nonsense about not knowing the whole story.
And I said "Thanks for the information" now didn't I?
Then what did I do? I added additional comments to the effect that a person should be careful about jumping to conclusions. That's just what most people do when looking at pictures like those.
And what does that accomplish?
It inspires anger and a sense of self righteous indignation which they then project on every white person they see coming down the pike.
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen THAT particular photo accompanied by long diatribes enumerating the collective sins of the entire white race.
Another photo that is frequently shown for the same purpose is the one with the black man with the scars of a whip on his back.
If I posted a photo of the stubs remaining on the child's hand I mentioned in my anecdote would you say it would be fair of me to accompany it with an article that either implies or explicitly states that this is the kind of thing that one should expect from blacks?
No. The purpose of those people posting these photos is less for the sake of promoting "social justice" than it is to further inflame antagonistic emotions and INCITE VIOLENCE against whites.
As an experiment you might take notice of how many time such articles have been written BY JEWS, and how many times by blacks. Then compare it to the numbers of times they are presented by white men or women with chips on their own shoulders seeking someone to blame for their own personal dissatisfaction.
I posted the story and you showed your true colors by insinuating that the lynched men didn't deserve due process.
I'm white. I'm not ashamed of it. And I'm not apologizing to you for it.
I haven't "spewed" any "racist" nonsense.
What is a racist anyway?
Can you give me a definition for that?
None of them...these pussies are insignificant losers who are blaming blacks for their personal failures.
Let's see if I got this straight. You're not calling the people who beat up and abuse blacks all the time "pussies". Right?
That is to say, that in order to not be a "pussy", one has to show his "manliness" by whuppin' up on someone. Right?
I take it , that someone that they whup up on should preferably be someone whom THEY CAN whup up on.
Otherwise, if they can't whup up on them then what?
Would they still be a "pussy"?
I mean, if a person, in order to avoid being called a "pussy" decided to find someone to whup up on. If then having chosen his victim, attacked them with that purpose, what if, say, that 'victim' turned on the attacker and whupped his ass instead, .........would the attacker still be called a "pussy" in your book?
Or would you give him any credit for trying?
Another scenario;
Let's say a person is walking down the street, minding his own business, and then someone walks up behind him and SUCKER PUNCHES him and manages to knock him out.
Which person would you say is the "pussy", the person who was walking along minding his own business who got blind sided, or the person who sneaked up on him and clobbered him without so much as a "How do you do?"?
In other words, are you trying to say that "a pussy" is someone who just doesn't go around attacking people for no good reason, or that "a pussy" is someone who always gets his ass whipped?
Another way of putting this would be to ask; Is YOUR definition of "pussy" to mean
"The person who gets defeated in a fight".........?
Is it the person who is afraid to fight?
Is it a person who avoids a fight if possible?
Is it a person who is always afraid to fight no matter what the cause is?
Is it a person who has sense enough to not tangle with someone who will most likely get the better of him?
Is it the person who loses in a fight?
Or is it a person who avoids a fight, but will given sufficient reason, fight back against a bully whether he gets his ass beat or not?
Now. Depending upon the definition that you choose here, I may or may not fit YOUR DEFINITION of what a "pussy" is.
You've already indicated that you do NOT classify a "pussy" as being among those people who beat up on and abuse blacks.
SO. You have provided all those white "boys" out there with a definition by which they can avoid being tagged a "pussy", at least by you.
Now all they have to do is act according to YOUR definition and they can always count on them to never call them "White Insipid Male Pussycats" again. Right? You won't go back on your word now will you?
Perhaps this has something to do with why some of our white forefathers took the attitude towards blacks that they did.
Perhaps for the sake of restoring our "manliness" we should go back to the old ways.
At least then, blacks didn't go around SUCKER PUNCHING white guys and calling them PUSSY.
What do you think?
SO. What's a "loser" in your estimation?
And I still think you are a Pussy!
And I still think you are a Mu'Fukka.
LOL...your post makes no sense. Its funny when a stupid pussy thinks he is smart and tries to preach. The evil JEWS are writing articles...LMAO, classic.
I realize you probably taxed every one of your brain cells to write that diatribe. Try again, I'm not impressed.